The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to preside over the annual ceremonies marking the opening of the legal year on Friday, 29th September, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Census Forms: Welsh Ethnicity

Lord Hooson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they approve of the decision of the Office for National Statistics to send out next year's census forms with provision for the Irish and Scots to indicate their ethnic origins but with no provision for the Welsh to do so.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the content of the census in England and Wales and in Scotland is a matter for the respective Parliaments to decide. When the proposal was debated in the Commons and in this House, no Member raised concerns about the proposed form of the ethnicity question. The Office for National Statistics has consulted widely on the 2001 census in Wales, especially in Ceredigion and Gwynedd. It is possible to write in "Welsh" on the census form; if people say they are Welsh, they will be counted as Welsh.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, does he appreciate that this appears to be a form of racial discrimination? Bearing in mind that it is alleged in some quarters that there are now as many Welsh people, and almost as many Welsh speakers, in England as there are in Wales, would it not be wise for the Government to discover the true statistics by means of the census?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the census form is available in Welsh as well as in English. That, too, has been tested in Ceredigion and in Gwynedd. That was the principal demand of those in Wales who sought to express views on the census in Wales, and it has been granted. The question of an additional "Welsh" tick-box was not raised. Its presence would not add significantly to the information gained from the census.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what provisions there are for those who are English to proclaim the fact?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the census form provides for "British" to be recorded. That point was discussed when the ethnicity question was debated both in this House and in the House of Commons.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, would the Government bear in mind that the census form does of course allow a person resident in Wales to tick himself off as "British" or "Irish", "Asian or Asian British", "Black or Black British", "Chinese" or a variety of permutations of such ethnic groups. Should the Minister not address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson; namely, that it is discriminatory, if not insulting, to people living in Wales if they are not allowed to describe themselves simply as "Welsh"?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not seek at all to dismiss that point of view. If the question is raised in relation to subsequent censuses, it will be considered sympathetically. My point is that the matter was never raised when ethnicity questions were discussed. Noble Lords on both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat Front Benches expressed their approval of the questions proposed for the census.

Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the noble Lord may rest assured that the Cross Benches did not express their approval. Therefore, I ask the Government to look again at what has become a matter of sensitivity and controversy. I appreciate that nationality and ethnicity are always issues of agreement and disagreement, but surely the nationalities of people within these islands, and the nationality of choice of those who wish to register themselves as Welsh, should be recognised.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Cross Benches did not express their opinions because they did not choose to do so. The matter was debated in this House. There was an opportunity for any Member to express a view and no Cross-Bencher intervened. As to whether this is now a matter of controversy, it is true that the Western Mail has been conducting a campaign in favour of a "Welsh" tick-box. I do not know how much support it has received. Only 1,200 items of correspondence and e-mails have been sent to the Office for National Statistics and not all of those were in favour of the change that the Western Mail seeks to promote.

Benefit Fraud

Lord Campbell of Croy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether their current estimate for fraud in the system of welfare benefits pertaining to social security and housing amounts to £4 billion per year.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we estimate that roughly £2 billion is lost through fraud and about £2 billion through errors made by claimants and staff. We have started and are expanding a programme of measurement exercises to provide more precise figures, and we have set a challenging target to halve the rate of loss in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 2006.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. If successful in its aim, it is encouraging. However, what progress has been made in reducing fraud in housing benefit, which is probably the worst area? The Minister indicated in response to my Question on 18th April that a new "verification framework" was being introduced. Is it true that two former members of MI5 and Customs and Excise have been appointed to head a new intelligence system concerning fraud?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said in introducing his supplementary question. I should make it clear that the campaign against fraud has not been undertaken only by this Government. The previous government, under Mr Peter Lilley as Secretary of State, commenced the war against fraud, so strictly speaking it is a non-party matter. I do not think that I can say what progress has been made in dealing with housing benefit fraud. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, answered the Question in April, no further statistics have been published.
	As to the question of the assistance given to the department by those assigned to it from MI5 and Customs and Excise, the noble Lord is entirely right; and their contribution is very much appreciated.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Hollis has always done, my noble friend Lord McIntosh has demonstrated the Government's readiness to inform the House as fully as possible about fraud in the benefit system. Can he tell us now--or perhaps write to me to say--by how much disability benefits and the means-tested income support entitlements of frail elderly people went unclaimed at the latest date for which figures are available? What approximately were the total sums unclaimed?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is possible now--or, indeed, in the future--to give accurate figures on under-claiming. Clearly the statistical exercise that is undertaken to check on over-claiming, whether fraudulent or not, can be carried out by a sampling exercise. However, under-claiming does not appear in the books of the Department of Social Security. Without sampling of the total population, which would be a very expensive exercise, it is not easy to make the kind of estimate that my noble friend seeks.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, given the fact that the black economy involves both benefit fraud and, probably to a much larger extent, tax evasion, will the Government consider a joined-up attack on both kinds of fraud, linking both the DSS and the Inland Revenue?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord will well know, my noble friend Lord Grabiner produced a report earlier this year for the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what he calls the "black economy"--we prefer to call it the "informal economy". That report covers both tax evasion and benefit fraud. The Chancellor of the Exchequer responded to that in his Budget Statement. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that he is pursuing the matter very actively.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this is possibly the time for us to have a national identity card system? Surely that would help to combat fraud in these areas.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is going somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, there is a point behind what she says: the exchange of information between government departments that are concerned with different kinds of social security and housing benefit, as well as with the tax system, helps in combating fraud. The exchange of information that now takes place does so with the approval of the Data Protection Registrar.

Lord Elton: My Lords, as regards the Minister's own welfare, can he say whether he enjoyed a sufficient holiday during the Recess? It seems to me that his voice is no better now than it was at the end of July. If it is a matter of the Minister cheering himself hoarse for his leader at the conference, we are concerned that he should not now answer all the Questions on the Order Paper.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was indeed cheering my leader at the conference yesterday. Unfortunately, as my voice disappeared before then, it was not very effective cheering. I have no intention of answering any Questions on other subjects from noble Lords today, although I shall be happy to continue to answer questions on this matter as long as the House wishes me to do so.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House always admires the versatility of the noble Lord. However, on the point raised by my noble friend initially on housing benefit, does the Minister recall that the Audit Commission suggested last December that 40 per cent of councils do not require applicants for housing benefit to give their national insurance number? Further, is he aware of the very depressing statistic that benefit fraud by council staff and councillors affects some one-eighth of councils? Can the noble Lord say whether any progress has been made on either on those issues?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right about the Audit Commission's report. It is certainly true that there is housing benefit fraud in some areas of the country on a very considerable and organised scale. However, it is largely landlord fraud rather than fraud by those receiving housing benefit or, indeed, by council staff. I am not aware of the accusation made by the noble Lord about councillors. If he has any further information on that point, I should be glad to know about it.
	Yes, it is true that a great deal of further progress is needed on housing benefit fraud. It is also true to say that the failure of councils to take up the option that they have been urged to adopt to stop the Royal Mail redirecting housing benefit cheques still needs to be addressed by all local authorities. We urge them seriously to do so. We shall continue to make what progress we can.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, with reference to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, can the Minister confirm, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has assured us at least two or three times in this House, that there is still very little fraud, if any, in the disability benefits system?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. Of the £4 billion of fraud to which I alluded in my Answer, that relating to disability living allowance amounts to not more than £0.5 billion. The figures for incapacity benefit and invalid care allowance amount to less than £0.25 million when put together, which represents a small proportion of the total. I should point out that those figures include both fraud and error.

Senior Civil Servants: Retirement Age

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will increase the compulsory retirement age for senior officials in the Cabinet Office from 60 to 65.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the retirement age for members of the Senior Civil Service within the Cabinet Office follows the policy laid down in the Civil Service Management Code for Senior Civil Servants, which specifies a normal retirement age of 60. In the light of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, Winning the Generation Game, the Cabinet Office will be considering, as recommended in the report, whether any change to the normal retirement age is required.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer and especially for promising to look into the question of forcing people out of work at the age of 60 simply because they have reached that age. Does he accept that to do so, whether in the Cabinet Office or anywhere else, is a form of totally unacceptable ageism? Does he not recognise that in this House the vast majority of people have learned from their own experience that it is only after the age of 60 that one acquires full skill, experience and knowledge?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure about the second point; everyone is able to judge that for themselves. As regards the first point, the PIU report, Winning the Generation Game, makes clear that people retiring at the age of 60 results in a large section of employers losing what may be a beneficial period of work. The report prescribes that the Civil Service should consider whether the normal retirement age could be increased to 65 where that is not already the case. That matter is now being examined.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister consider going a stage further? Will he accept that the whole concept of compulsory retirement at a time when we are all living longer and finishing our education later may not make a great deal of sense? Will he consider the experience of the United States in this respect? Given the difficulties of financing adequate increases in the state pension for ordinary people, does he recognise that different conditions as well as different levels of pension are the source of an innate sense of injustice?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness's first point about whether the concept of a normal retirement age is now appropriate is important. However, the normal retirement age has two aspects. First, it affects pensions and the funding of pensions, which is an important and difficult issue; secondly, people who join organisations must believe that there will be scope for them to progress within those organisations. That is a difficult balance to bear in mind. As I said, the noble Baroness makes an important point. There is much to be learned from the experience of the United States in this regard.

Lord Renton: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord witnessed that many people of 60 still have a lot to learn? It is a terrible waste of talent within the Civil Service if people are made to go at 60 merely to transfer their abilities to business while they are still much needed by the state.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is often the case that people of all ages, even, from time to time, those over 60, have much to learn. However, I agree with the essential point that the noble Lord makes; namely, that, particularly within the Civil Service, much talent may well be lost if people retire at the normal age. The private sector may be the beneficiary of what the whole nation could benefit from if someone stayed in the Civil Service.

Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I encourage my noble and learned friend on the course of virtue which he is now beginning to pursue. I urge him and his colleagues to proceed as rapidly as possible. We comprise an ageing population which retains a good deal of its health longer into old age. For the Government to insist on retiring people compulsorily at the age of 60--people often of great ability and experience--is an absurdity. If it is not ageism, it is still absurd.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is important that we learn the lesson implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Shore, says. A timetable has been set for the process on which we have embarked within the Civil Service. Each department must report back by 30th September of next year with a view to implementing what is in effect an increase in the normal retirement age to 65 by 2005.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that this Question comes 13 years too late for one retired senior official of the Cabinet Office? Is he also aware--if he is not, I hope that he will in due course become so--that life does not stop at 60 and those who retire from the public service at 60 are still able to deploy their talents and energies not merely in the private sector but also in public service of many and various kinds? I refer to membership of departmental committees, conducting special reviews and many other different activities, including, for a fortunate few, membership of this House. Finally, when the noble and learned Lord considers raising the final retirement age, will he also consider the possibility of a more flexible retirement age so that officials can retire without feeling that that is discreditable at any time between 55 and 65 if the public service needs allow and encourage that? I believe that that could be of great benefit to the public service.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am well aware that as regards this House and other organisations what is now proposed by the Government has come much too late for too many people. I also take the point that people can contribute to other sectors than the private sector once they have retired from the public sector. I hope that the department will consider flexibility when it conducts the review that the PIU report calls for.

MI6 Headquarters

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to review security procedures at the MI6 headquarters as a consequence of the recent missile attack.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, security procedures are naturally reviewed after any incident such as the attack on the headquarters of the Secret Intelligence Service on the evening of 20th September, and, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police, such a review is in progress. My noble friend will, I am sure, appreciate that I am not able to discuss the detail of any existing or future security measures that are or will be in place at government buildings.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that understandably reticent reply. I am sure that we all appreciate the speedy and effective response of the Metropolitan Police to this incident. Is my noble friend in a position to give any indication as to who may have perpetrated this attack or the origin of the weapon that was used?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as my noble friend rightly said, a full scale police investigation is in progress, for which we are grateful. No particular group has acknowledged responsibility for this attack. As I said, the matter is now the subject of a detailed police investigation. The police have made clear that a number of groups could have had access to the type of weapon used. It would be wrong at this stage to enter into any speculation as to which of them might be responsible.

Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the decision to house the Secret Intelligence Service in this particular building was made during what might be described as Mrs Thatcher's "Ceausescu period"? Does she not agree that it has sent all the wrong messages, both to the staff and to the general public, to have our Secret Intelligence Service housed in such a ludicrously flamboyant building?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as tempted as I am to be seduced by the noble Lord's rhetoric, this building is located where it is through the choice of a previous government. However, in these days when such a building is likely to be identified anyway, it is not a matter which need cause us any real concern.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I hope that it will not sound frivolous if I say that this enormous building, which I believe is often described as a wedding cake, has in the age of the hand-held missile become a sitting duck. I believe that there are serious implications for the future, given high technology's ability to smuggle dangerous weapons into the centre of London and aim them at any prominent building. Will the noble Baroness assure us on two matters? First, now that everyone knows where the Secret Intelligence Service is housed, will she assure us that all possible steps will be taken to fortify that enormous building more effectively? Secondly, will she suggest to the mandarins and masters of the Secret Intelligence Service that when they expand further--as no doubt they will--they might consider returning some of their staff to the shabby anonymity of the building over St James's Underground which no one knew about except the bus conductors who always referred to it as "Spys' Corner"?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful for that suggestion. If no one knew about it before, they certainly do now.
	Any building would be subject to attack. However, I can reassure the House that the expenditure that was engaged in has enhanced the building to such an extent that the attack did not unduly disrupt matters in that building. It was able to withstand the attack with the appropriate robust response. We need not be worried that the effective fortification of this building has been impeached. It has not.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the Minister confirm two matters? First, I understand that the Secret Intelligence Service did not choose that building. It was built for some other department and it had unfortunately to inherit it. That point should be noted.
	Will the Minister also confirm that, since the weapon used is not infrequently in the armoury of various branches of the IRA, one of the best measures the Government might take in future would be to remove from the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill the weakening measures designed to reduce the effectiveness of the Special Branch of the RUC? That Special Branch is our chief protection against such attacks if they are IRA attacks--as they have been and will be.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say again that we do not know the origin of the attack. Noble Lords will know that the type of weapon used in the attack was an RPG 22 rocket-propelled grenade. That, regrettably, is a device used by many groups. For that reason the police, with great energy, are trying to discover who is responsible. I cannot concede what the noble Baroness says about an amendment to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. Appropriate steps have been taken and will continue to be taken to ensure that our nation remains secure.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the Government consider including in the review of the incident by the Metropolitan Police the reasons that so many of London's streets and the railway line into Waterloo Station were closed for so long? As well as gaining publicity from hitting the building, there is no doubt that terrorists also draw great comfort from the disruption which is caused to the life of the capital by such incidents.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, security is very much an issue for the police. They took the steps which were appropriate at the time to make sure that the area was secure not only for their investigation but also so that members of the public were not put at risk. That must be their first priority. I respectfully suggest that everything done on that day was done in the most appropriate and convenient manner.

Millennium Dome

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, following events in connection with the Dome over the Summer Recess, I should like to update the House on the developments that have taken place since the House last met.
	This Government acknowledge that the Millennium Experience has not been the success that the majority of this House had hoped for. The project was too ambitious given the time constraints of design and build and the one year only operation. The target of 12 million visitors was too ambitious; and it was not appropriate for the public sector to manage a large visitor attraction.
	However, this should not distract us from what has been achieved. The Dome is the number one pay-to-visit attraction in the UK, with over 4.6 million visits so far, and number two in Europe--with visitor satisfaction ratings among the industry's highest.
	The Dome has been the catalyst for the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula--one of the Commission's main objectives in its proposal for a Millennium Exhibition. The Greenwich peninsula is now beginning to flourish, with a variety of new developments, community facilities and fresh ideas creating an exciting new urban quarter for London.
	The benefits have been felt right across the United Kingdom. Over £300 million worth of construction contracts have been awarded to UK companies; 13,000 employees have gained work in construction and operation of projects on the Greenwich peninsula; and there has been a substantial boost to the UK economy from foreign visitors in 2000. This will benefit the whole country.
	There is still a great deal of work to done to secure the achievements of the Millennium Experience project and to secure a long-term future. I am determined to see this project through and secure those benefits.
	Despite the setbacks of recent months the workforce remains committed to the project and proud of its achievements. Visitor numbers are encouraging, with around 48,000 people visiting the Dome last weekend.
	I can assure the House that there are lessons to be learnt; and we are aware of the lessons to be learnt. However, we cannot put the clock back, and we are where we are. The project is three months from its conclusion and there are still vital tasks to be accomplished: making sure that those 283,000 people, including school parties, who have already booked tickets for the Dome and the many thousands whom we expect to visit in the run up to Christmas and the New Year get the day at the Dome to which they have been looking forward; making sure that all those employed directly and indirectly are able to see out their contracts; making sure that the contracts with the sponsors and exhibitors are honoured; in essence, to avoid insolvent liquidation which would be much more costly and damaging than trading until the end of the year; and securing a long-term future for the Dome, which continues to maximise the regeneration benefit to Greenwich, the wider Thames Gateway and London as a whole.
	We recognise the disappointments of the project and of the summer. It is important that I now update the House in detail. First, as regards the appointment of David James, on 5th August the Millennium Commission agreed to provide a further grant to the company of £43 million, drawn forward from the expected £53 million receipt from the sale of the Dome to Nomura.
	The then chairman of NMEC, David Quarmby, with the support of the board, in consultation with the Millennium Commission, concluded that NMEC required additional corporate financial expertise and that this was required at executive chairman level. Mr Quarmby therefore approached PricewaterhouseCoopers Corporate Recovery Group to carry out an independent financial review of NMEC's finances and also to suggest potential candidates for the post of executive chairman. Mr Quarmby approached David James in early August and he worked on a fee free consultancy basis with the NMEC team and PWC during the review of the company's finances. The report was presented to the board of the company on 22nd August. I have requested PWC's approval to place copies of this technical corporate finance report in the Libraries of both Houses. NMEC appointed David James as executive chairman on 5th September. He has taken on this role on a non-fee basis.
	The report indicated that, in order for the company to meet its liabilities, to continue trading until the end of the year and to achieve an orderly wind-down, a further £47 million was required on top of the £43 million advanced in July. (A major reason for the additional grant was the failure of the company to assess its wind-down costs). The report further indicated that, should the Millennium Commission not provide the £47 million, the company would have to cease trading immediately. Insolvent liquidation of the company would have resulted in the immediate loss of up to 5,000 jobs for people directly and indirectly employed at the Dome; creditors would go unpaid; small businesses would suffer; and tens of thousands of visitors and many schools with pre-booked tickets would be disappointed. The PWC report considers in detail whether it would be cheaper to close earlier than 31st December. It concluded unambiguously that it would be more expensive to close early than to continue until 31st December. This is because the expenditure saved would not be as high as the revenue lost and the likely claims which would be made in the event of earlier closure. The report indicated that if the company were to honour its obligations then it would be cheaper by some £30 million to £40 million to trade until the end of the year than to close early.
	The report also indicates shortcomings in the financial controls in the company. On 22nd August, immediate changes in the executive management of the company were made. David James was appointed executive chairman of the company and John Darlington was appointed as finance director and steps were taken to support them. Overall, the budget is exceeded by only 4.6 per cent. While controls are vital, one should not lose sight of the extent of the overspend.
	In evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on 17th July, and in a Written Answer that I gave in the House on 27th July, I stated that NMEC was trading solvently. I gave those answers on the basis of the views of the company, which has had the benefit of independent legal and accounting advice throughout the year. The PWC report revealed the need for further grant from the Millennium Commission. That was obtained by the company as soon as possible after the shortfall became apparent, thereby rectifying the situation. The answers that I gave on 17th and 27th July obviously did not contain the material subsequently revealed in the PWC report because I did not know it. I have taken the first opportunity to put the record straight in the House.
	The events that have evolved over the summer and the additional information that has come to light following the PWC report are, of course, very disappointing, but I trust that noble Lords will agree that the Millennium Commission and the Government have taken the only sensible course of action available to them, consistent with minimising further financial costs and preserving the many benefits that are accruing from the project.
	On 11th September, Nomura withdrew from the legacy competition. Subsequently, the Millennium Commission reaffirmed its commitment to the project following Nomura's decision to withdraw. The claims made by Mr Guy Hands of Nomura in his letter of 11th September to the competition director, withdrawing from the competition, have been refuted by Mr David James, NMEC's executive chairman. I am placing a copy of that correspondence in the Libraries of both Houses.
	I can confirm that the Government are in discussions with Legacy plc regarding the sale of the Millennium Dome. Legacy plc was the second shortlisted bidder in the competition previously established for the future of the Millennium Dome. Subject to satisfactory progress, Legacy plc could be granted preferred bidder status within approximately one month.
	The Government are also exploring other options for keeping the Dome in parallel with the Legacy plc discussions, but we are not soliciting offers, nor are we in serious negotiation with any other party. I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to a long-term future for the Dome.
	It was important that Parliament had the true position as soon as possible after I became aware of the true facts. I shall not attempt in this statement to give noble Lords a detailed breakdown of the budget at the beginning of the year and the budget as it now stands. However, I shall place details in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as possible. I can confirm that the current budget is based on 4.5 million paying visitors. As I have already said, we recognise that the original estimate of 12 million was far too optimistic. However, the company has continually revised its visitor target as it has become informed by actual attendance figures. The Millennium Experience has not been as successful as we had hoped and the impact of the drop in visitor numbers and the resulting downturn in revenue has been by far the most significant pressure on NMEC's budget. The enhanced management team is focused on successful trading until the end of the year.
	Since May 1997, the Government have answered over 1,100 Parliamentary Questions; there have been numerous debates in this House and the other place and there have been five Select Committee inquiries on the subject, to which the shareholder has always given evidence, as have other Ministers. The government response to the Select Committee report published in July will be published on 23rd October, when the other place returns. Scrutiny has been rigorous and will continue to be so, as is right for a project of such a scale.
	In addition, the National Audit Office investigation is progressing. I hope that noble Lords agree that the current investigations should be completed and the PAC's findings published before any judgments are made.
	As I have said on many occasions, I am determined to see the project through to the end. The enhanced management team is focused on making the project work until the end of the year and ensuring an orderly wind-down of the business. That is our objective, which I remain committed to seeing through.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Minister has been prepared to come to the House to make a Statement today, but does he understand that his account of what he refers to as the disappointments--I stress that word--of the summer comes far too late to meet the widespread public anger about how the Government have bungled the handling of the Dome project? It was new Labour's flagship project.

Noble Lords: No.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I notice that the word "new" seems to have been dropped from most of the hoardings at the Labour Party conference this week, but the project was Labour's reflection of new Britain. It was a project on which they said that their competence could be judged. Today the Minister asks the jury to wait a little longer before returning its verdict. Is it not a fact that the jury has long since returned its verdict and the judgment on his management of the project is that he has failed utterly?
	Financial monitoring has been negligent. Although the Minister has told the House that he saw the Dome company's papers and was getting weekly trading figures on his desk--indeed, that he attended board meetings and has been in constant contact--nobody even knew what the assets of the company were. It missed its trading targets by millions and millions of visitors--targets that were set and agreed by this Government after a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the Dome project. They were agreed by the Cabinet in June 1997.
	This summer, the Dome has been shown to have been trading insolvently. I welcome the Minister's comment today that he has approached PricewaterhouseCoopers and asked for permission for its report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Many of us have already read most of it, because it was posted on a website by the Sunday Times recently. Will the report that the Minister publishes include the missing section on page 39, headed "Implications for Directors", which includes shadow directors?
	The Minister has referred to the fact that one rescue deal has collapsed--the deal that he told the House on 27th July had secured the future of the Dome. In his Statement he referred to the fact that on 5th August the Millennium Commission agreed to provide a further £43 million, which was drawn down out of the £53 million receipts expected from the sale of the Dome. What happens now? The Millennium Commission gave out money to be received from a sale that we are now told will not take place. What is the position with regard to that £43 million that has been handed over?
	There has been contractual chaos throughout and two chairmen of the company have been sacked along the way. The project has been a fiasco, but the sole shareholder--the Minister--sails blithely on. When will he accept his responsibility and go?
	When the Minister told me on 27th July that the Dome company was trading solvently, I trusted him, as I had always trusted him. Today, when he read the Statement, he said that he gave me that answer on the basis of the views of the company. I expected better than that from a Minister whose duty it is to carry out a thorough review of the spending of the public's lottery money--now £629 million of it. As a Minister, did he receive independent advice? If not, why not?
	When did the Minister first notice that the Dome company had failed to do something as basic as construct an asset register? When did he notice for the first time that it had offered open-ended contracts without any fixed liability, so that certain contracts could not be cancelled without the possibility of vast sums being incurred in compensation? When did he first notice that the company had failed to calculate the simple costs of closing the exhibition? As sole shareholder, it was his responsibility alone to safeguard the use of the public's money. After all, if such a huge project had been in the hands of the private sector and had been so spectacularly mishandled, one thing is certain: the person in charge would have gone long ago.
	The noble and learned Lord is well respected in this House. He has been and still is a popular figure when he comes into this Chamber. Many people suspect that he is acting as a type of air raid shelter for the Prime Minister and other leading members of this Government who made the decisions early on and who have driven the project from day one.
	Can the Minister say whether he has ever offered his resignation to the Prime Minister and, if so, whether it has been refused? Of course, it may be an honourable position to stand by your friends. However, will he accept that it would be far more honourable and add to the respect in which he is held if he now accepted ministerial responsibility for what his colleague, Clare Short, has called the "disaster" of the Dome and lay down the office that he currently holds?

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having taken this step as soon as the House was recalled. I believe that the one thing on which we can probably all agree is that today we are talking about a fine old mess. I understand that we shall soon have the benefit of a debate on this issue. Therefore, today I want to make only a few preliminary observations.
	I want to put one specific point to the noble and learned Lord concerning Nomura. Apparently, Nomura claims to have asked for detailed figures. It claims that it was not given those figures. I find that extremely puzzling, so perhaps the Minister can explain why that was so.
	I do not propose to become involved in a finger-pointing exercise about who has the major responsibility for the problem that we are discussing today. Speaking as an individual, I cannot pretend that I was unduly enthusiastic about the Dome when it was first announced by the previous Conservative government. However, once the project had also been backed by the new government, I, with many others, I am sure, hoped that it would prove to be a success.
	Unfortunately, others were just as determined that it should be a failure. We have only to study the speech of the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Heseltine, delivered in the House of Commons on 21st February this year, to see the difficulties that he and the former government encountered as a result of the hostility of a number of tabloid and other newspapers.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am surprised that the Conservative Party is demonstrating doubts on that matter. I am referring to what the former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister said.
	Although it would be sheer humbug for me to pretend that I was one of Mr Heseltine's most passionate admirers when he was a Minister of the government in which so many Members of the Opposition Front Bench in this House served, I always considered that his record in Liverpool and subsequently in Docklands was absolutely first class. The Docklands project is one of the most impressive developments in Europe. For that, Mr Heseltine deserves enormous personal credit. As he said, the 300 acres of dereliction and contamination, now known as the Dome site on the other side of the river, now represent an area of huge potential. It has made a major contribution to the economy of south-east London and to its infrastructure.
	Therefore, it is very sad that we have arrived at the situation that we have today and that we must recognise the failure--indeed, the substantial failure--of the Dome project. Some of the errors are now fairly obvious. Estimates for the number of visitors were wildly optimistic; and there was something even more fundamental. It would have been far better if from the start Ministers had kept an arm's length relationship with the project. However, that was not done. I believe it was a serious mistake.
	To some extent at least, I can understand why Ministers were so deeply involved. The previous Conservative government decided that they had to raise approximately £150 million from private sector sponsors. At that time, the government were in an extraordinarily weak political position. Therefore, they decided that they simply had to have clearly defined backing for the project from the then opposition. As Mr Heseltine reminded us recently, it was,
	"an all-party concept".--[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/00; col 1317.]
	That approach has been perhaps not quite so obvious this afternoon.
	I believe that that is only one of the reasons why Ministers became directly involved in the project. It would have been far better to have had a public body of the kind established by Herbert Morrison with, of course, significant private sector representation but with no Ministers of the Crown directly involved.
	As I said, we understand that we shall return to this issue within the next few weeks. I hope that on that occasion we shall do our best to limit the kind of rancorous exchanges that do so little to enhance the reputation of British politicians. Serious and, indeed, grave errors have been made by a significant number of people over the Dome, but to try to pin responsibility on a single individual is absurd.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I deal, first, with what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. Have we bungled our handling of the issue and has the financial monitoring been inadequate? As was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, this scheme was conceived on a cross-party basis. The Millennium Commission supported and promoted it. It was conceived as a way of celebrating the millennium and regenerating that part of the United Kingdom. When we came to power, we examined the scheme and decided to support it. We took the view that it was right to give the project a real chance because the benefits to be obtained for the standing of the country and for that part of the United Kingdom were substantial.
	I am sure that everyone, including the Millennium Commission, recognised that a risk was involved. In very many respects that risk has not paid off and we are paying for it now. However, I believe that it is wrong for people suddenly to say, "Oh, it was obvious right from the start that you shouldn't have taken that risk". I believe that it was a risk worth taking and that it was an honourable risk.
	So far as concerns the management, we supported a scheme which involved the setting up of a private limited company with one shareholder; namely, someone who represented the Government. That position was filled first by a number of Conservative Ministers, then by Mr Peter Mandelson and then by myself. The aim was to ensure that the shareholder would be accountable to Parliament but the company would run the operation. That had never been tried before. To the people who conceived it, it appeared to be a good idea. Further examination will reveal whether or not it was. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, such a scheme gives rise to very real difficulties as to precisely where the line is drawn in the relationship between, on the one hand, operational management and, on the other, accountability to Parliament.
	So far as concerns accountability to Parliament, the one matter of which I am absolutely sure is that I should rely on the professional advice given to the company. I should let the board of directors make the commercial decisions and I should not start to interfere in operational decisions. The one thing that is clear--and that was clear right from the outset--is that a visitor attraction cannot be run from Whitehall.
	I am surprised by the suggestions of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that I was not being full and frank in relation to what I said either today or on 12th or 27th July. So far as concerns 12th and 27th July, the views of the board were based on advice which it had received from lawyers and independent accountants. I did not believe that it was my duty to go into the detail to that extent. I was entitled to rely on the advice which was being received. Of course, what has happened is disappointing but we must look at the overall picture to see why it went wrong rather than simply focusing on particular matters.
	The noble Baroness asked me about the PWC report. In the past few days, we have asked what is the position in relation to that. We have not yet got to the bottom of what permissions we require to place the PWC report in the Libraries of both Houses. We shall deal with that as quickly as possible in the hope that the whole of the report, not just those parts which are on the Sunday Times website, is placed in the Library.
	Thirdly, the noble Baroness asked me about the £43 million. She is absolutely right that the Millennium Commission's grant of £43 million--the one at the beginning of August, not the second one--was posited on the basis that the Nomura deal would go ahead and all that £43 million would be repaid. The moment it became clear that that was not the position, the company went back to the Millennium Commission which indicated that it was content to continue with that advance, even though the Nomura deal had fallen through. Of course, if there is a subsequent deal, the matter will be brought straight back to the Millennium Commission for further discussions.
	I have dealt with questions about 17th and 27th July. The noble Baroness asked me when I became aware that there was no basic asset register. I did not become aware of it until Nomura mentioned it. She asked when I became aware that there were open-ended contractual liabilities. I am not clear to which particular contracts the noble Baroness refers. The PWC report refers to a particular number of contracts where they may be claims and figures have been put in relation to that.
	She asked when I became aware of the total costs of closing. I assume that she means the liabilities after the experience has ceased to operate for the public. They were first identified in full by Pricewaterhouse. That was when I first became aware of them.
	The noble Baroness referred to my position. I recognise that I am the Minister responsible for the Millennium Dome. I conceive my responsibility in relation to it to be to see it through to the end. In the context of the Millennium Dome, I am talking about procuring a legacy for it and protecting the rights of the people who have dealt with and worked at the Dome. Those interests and the interests of the public purse are best served by somebody staying on to the end. Mr David James, who is now the executive chairman of the company, has expressed the same view.
	I have covered most of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He referred to a debate in this House. It is not for me to say whether or not there should be a debate in this House. I say only that the appropriate time for a debate is after the National Audit Office and the PAC reports are available, which I understand will be some time in October and November when the matter can be debated in full. Whether or not and when that debate takes place is a matter for the usual channels.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I wish to raise one matter for clarification, which I understand is permissible. The noble and learned Lord said he thought he had addressed all my questions. I asked specifically whether he had offered his resignation and it had been refused.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, no, I have not.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, there is a danger that we may waste an awful lot of time talking about which party is primarily concerned with this mess. At this stage of the proceedings, even now, if I had to choose between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and Mr Heseltine, I should have some sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
	The issue is extremely simple. It is wholly and solely about the financial management and control of a massive public project. What I find most worrying is that the board does not seem to have had at any time a clear understanding of a situation which was becoming increasingly serious. It must have had, at every meeting, a cash flow forecast. That is one of the easiest financial documents to follow and yet the evidence is--and the Minister has confirmed it this afternoon--that the true position was revealed by PWC and Nomura of all people, a company intending to buy the project.
	Will the Minister confirm that at the meeting on 22nd August, Mr Dipankar Ghosh of Pricewaterhouse formally warned the directors that there was a serious and immediate danger that they might become guilty of wrongful trading while insolvent or that that was a technical danger at least? Will the Minister confirm that Mr Ghosh took the trouble to set out the personal liabilities which the directors would suffer as a result as late as 22nd August?
	We need a picture of just how well prepared and how well informed about the situation the Government, the Minister and the board were in dealing with this matter. Therefore, will the Minister tell the House the date on which the £47 million grant was formally requested; the date on which it was formally agreed; and why such serious and fundamental problems, which were obvious to outsiders, were not even dimly apparent to either the board or the Minister?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the point about financial control is utterly critical but one should not lose sight of the fact that the amount by which the budget may have been exceeded is somewhere between 4.6 and 5 per cent. By comparison with other projects, particularly projects of this sort, that is not excessive.
	I deal with the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. He asked about cash flows. At every single board meeting which I attended, cash flows were available on particular bases which were considered in detail by the board. Of all the matters of which this company was obviously aware, it was aware of the need to know how much cash was coming into the company.
	Secondly, I was asked about the Pricewaterhouse report. I believe that it was on about 10th August that Pricewaterhouse was instructed to carry out the report. Throughout the time that it was undertaking the report--from 10th to 22nd August--it kept the chairman of the board informed, and he kept me informed, of the results of that inquiry. Secondly, officials of the Millennium Commission were kept informed as to the position.
	The most significant revelation of that report was that wind-down costs after 31st December had not been adequately provided for. So it was not the cash problem that was revealed but rather that, at the end of the day, unless adequate funds were made available, it was not possible to balance the books at the end of the project.
	Millennium Commission officials have been kept fully informed as to how the report developed. Within a very few days of 22nd August a formal application was made to the Millennium Commission which considered it first on 31st August, and on 4th September the formal grant was made. It was dealt with as expeditiously and sensibly as possible.
	The gentleman to whom the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred was saying that if there is no reasonable prospect of obtaining an additional grant from the Millennium Commission, then one may be in a position of insolvency. A judgment was made by the board, which turned out to be correct, that there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining that money.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I ask my noble and learned friend to understand that many of us will share the unhappiness about the financial failures of the Dome. But perhaps some may share with me the regret at the positive searching for and hounding of scapegoats. That does not help us at all. Nor does the party political tone of the noble Baroness help us in any way in understanding what is the problem here.
	I ask my noble and learned friend to ignore the over-clever--and I do not include the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in this--and somewhat simplistic view of a definition of insolvency which has been taken in this matter.
	As regards cash flow, if one were to take the case right across the board of companies not being able to make payment of debts, or deliberately delaying so doing, many hundreds if not thousands of large and small companies would be declared insolvent tomorrow. All that will come later when we debate the detail which is not before us. I am obliged to my noble and learned friend for setting out as much detail as possible today, which was helpful. To blame him for everything that has happened is frankly absurd. As he indicated, it is important to proceed as rapidly as possible to find an appropriate buyer. In the meantime, in the public interest we must ensure that the financial losses are stopped as quickly as possible.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the concluding comments of my noble friend's question. Perhaps I may comment on the cross-party aspect. This was a cross-party scheme, supported by both parties, which involved a risk. It is unfortunate that once the risk turned out in some respects in a bad way, the party opposite immediately dropped off. This is obviously a bandwagon on which it no longer wishes to be.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister recollect answering a Written Question from me on 27th July? I asked him if he could break down the costs of clearance and preparation of the site, the construction of the building and the ancillary works. He replied two months ago stating that he would write to me when the information was available. Is he aware that he has still not done so? I assume that that is because nobody knows what those costs were. Is not that a sad commentary on the way this project has been bungled throughout from its earliest days? Would the Minister further agree that unless those figures show that the site has been adequately cleared and the pollution risk fully dealt with for other developments to proceed, most of that money will be shown to have been wasted?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am surprised that I have not answered the Written Question dated 27th July as I recollect having answered a similar Question in the past. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord as I believe those figures are now available. As regards the substance of the question asked by the noble Lord, I do not accept, for a number of reasons, that the money has been wasted. First, the regeneration benefits were there at the time the Millennium Commission made its earliest decision. That decision remains one of the reasons for the project going ahead. Secondly, the Dome has attracted millions of visitors, far more than any other paid visitor attraction in the country, the vast majority of whom enjoyed the experience.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, the Opposition state that none of this would have happened in Docklands because it is in the private sector. But does my noble and learned friend agree that in 1991 the government announced a decision to spend £3 billion on the Jubilee Line extension in preference to a route which had a high rate of return--namely Crossrail--in order to rescue Canary Wharf, as Mr Heseltine will corroborate? Canary Wharf is now the jewel in Dockland's crown.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with that comment. I believe that if one were to come back in a number of years' time to look at the Dome, Canary Wharf and the whole area, one would see a picture of regeneration which has had a major effect on the Thames gateway.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I accept the validity of some of the points made by the Minister and sympathise with him on having inherited this project. However, is there not one aspect of this matter from which the Government cannot escape responsibility? I refer to the adequacy of the financial reporting upon which the Nomura deal floundered? It is not an adequate response to that point to say that this was originally a cross-party project. Can the Minister confirm that the accounts of the project are inadequate? It is astonishing that the assets of the company cannot be established. Is that not at least some criticism, if not of the Minister, of other people in Whitehall to whom the management of the New Millennium Experience Company reported?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards financial control and financial management, it is plain from the report of PricewaterhouseCoopers that that was not adequate, if for no other reason than the wind down liabilities were not adequately provided for. We need to look precisely to see why that was. The National Audit Office is currently looking into that and a report is imminent.
	As regards the asset list, yes, there were debates between Nomura and NMEC as to precisely what was available and an asset list. It is obviously most unsatisfactory that there was not a complete asset list. However, that was a problem that was being dealt with and worked through with Nomura. The letter from Mr James, which I shall place in the Libraries of both Houses, shows the detailed truth of that. It is regrettable that there was no such list. However, I believe that that should be looked at in the context of all the other things being done by the company and what it was up against at the time.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, were being uncharacteristically unfair to him? Some of their complaints may be justified. However, it seems to me that they should be directed towards the directors, who were experienced businessmen. Where were their antennae? Where were they when all the financial shortcomings and lack of financial controls were going on? Does my noble and learned friend agree that perhaps it is time for some of the directors to put their heads above the parapet and take some of the flack?

Noble Lords: Hear hear!

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not prepared to start pointing the finger at anybody at this time. In the context of what has happened it is important to try to ensure an orderly conclusion to the project.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, as someone who has never been to the Dome and has no intention of so doing, I had not intended to intervene today. However, I must confess and ask the noble and learned Lord to accept that I am distressed at the way in which this seems to have turned into a party political scrap, and the way in which some of this has been directed at the noble and learned Lord. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, it seems to me that there is a case here of firing at the wrong target. When I was in the Army, that was a court martial offence.
	The noble and learned Lord was handed a package marked "The Crown Jewels". When he came to open it, it was a can of worms. He should not be held responsible for that, but the donor of the package. There are many long trails of incompetence leading back through this whole story. No one party or person can possibly be blamed. I hope, therefore, that many illustrious heads will fall before we can legitimately fire at the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the remarks concerning my personal position. However, as I have said, I am keen not to point the finger at anybody, but to ensure that the project reaches an orderly conclusion.

Lord Boardman: My Lords, in the Statement the noble and learned Lord said that when the facts were known to him, he took certain action. One of the key facts which we assume has been inquired into, is what would be the rundown costs. What was he faced with? Who concealed the answers to those key facts from him? Was anyone fired for so doing or did the Minister not bother to ask?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there was a figure for rundown costs. I shall not say what that was. That figure was then investigated by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which came up with a much higher figure. That was one of the main reasons for the problems which emerged during August. There have been changes at the company. It would be wrong for me to say here, before people have had a chance to defend themselves, the names of the people involved.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that when we debate the Dome in this Chamber we should always remember those who are often forgotten in the midst of party political thrust; that is, the workers in the Dome? The regeneration of the area gave many of those workers employment for the first time in their lives. Many of them are young; many are black. I ask the Minister to support me in urging people not to forget that the regeneration of Greenwich produced thousands of jobs for people who did not previously have work and who, when the Dome closes, may not have work in the future.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I entirely agree. Perhaps I can make a point which is not made often enough; that is, that 4,800 people work at the Dome. They are the ones who are totally innocent in this story. They remain totally committed to the Dome. I hate to mention once again the opinion polls in relation to the Dome, but over 90 per cent of its visitors say that the staff are first class. The staff need to feel that people are committed until 31st December and let us remember, whoever else's fault this problem is, it is not theirs.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, will the Minister clarify for us the exact position in relation to the £43 million? Is that now a gift to the company; is it a secured loan; or is it just totally unsecured?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is a grant to the company.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, drew attention earlier to the fact that the Dome concept had all-party support. That statement has been repeated once or twice since. Can my noble and learned friend say whether that support is reflected in the membership of the Millennium Commission? Who, apart from the representatives from the Government, are members? Are there members from other political parties? I do not ask that in any sense of looking for a scapegoat; I am seeking to find a balance as to who was involved and would appreciate the Minister's comments.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Millennium Commission is an independent body. It has members from the Government and is always chaired by whoever holds the post of Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It also has two members from the Conservative Party; that is, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and Mr Michael Heseltine. It also contains a mix of business people and people from the world of the media and entertainment, who all contribute to its deliberations.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is perhaps too young to remember the Tanganyikan groundnut scheme, but this situation reminds me irresistibly of that. Is he aware of the quote from Julius Caesar:
	"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
	But in ourselves, that we are underlings"? The Government have not been able to sell the Dome to Nomura. They are now trying to hawk it around to anybody who will buy it. People will sit on their hands and wait until the price goes down. What happens when nobody buys the Dome because the queries raised by the question of my noble friend Lord Tebbit have not been answered? At the end of the year the Government will be left with an unsold Dome--running it, or whatever--because the likelihood of anybody buying it when they see a distressed sale, especially in the East End of London, is nil.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this situation is not like that of the Tanganyikan groundnut scheme. This was a scheme which everybody hoped would work. Everybody knew the risks, the main one of which was whether it would achieve the visitor numbers. It did not achieve those numbers. But nobody was in any doubt that that was one of the factors which had to be satisfied for it to be a success.
	We are not hawking the Dome around. As I described in my Statement, discussions are presently taking place with the person who was second in the competition list. I set out what would happen in that regard. If a sale cannot proceed, we shall look at other options. I do not believe for one moment that the market regards this as a distressed sale.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill has been committed to consider the bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 11, Schedule 2, Clauses 12 to 19, Schedule 3, Clauses 20 to 25 Schedule 4, Clauses 26 to 61 Schedule 5, Clauses 62 to 65, Schedule 6, Clause 66, Schedule 7 Clauses 67 to 73.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:PURPOSE OF THIS ACT
	(" . The purpose of this Act is to--
	(a) create a structure for mapping countryside in preparation for open access;
	(b) make provision for public access to the countryside;
	(c) set out a mechanism for granting public access upon completion, in whole or in part, of the mapping process;
	(d) control traffic of all kinds in areas of natural beauty and on land other than roads;
	(e) strengthen the law relating to nature conservation and the protection of wildlife;
	(f) receive Government proposals for developing areas of outstanding natural beauty; and
	(g) make necessary consequential changes.").

Baroness Byford: The purpose of introducing this new clause to the Bill is for clarification. At present the Bill leaves several aspects unclear. It is unclear that mapping and access are two separate issues. It is unclear that mapping will be wholly funded centrally, but that the costs provided for access will not; it is unclear that the mapping operation will start immediately and last continuously for up to eight years; it is unclear that access provisions will start two months after Royal Assent, mainly to mountain and registered common land; and it is unclear that the Secretary of State may allow access permissions to continue in fits and starts over a further two to seven years. Therefore much is unclear.
	The appointment of wardens and the authorisation of by-laws will not begin until access permission is granted. On the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent, most of the 47 million adults in England and Wales will consider that they have the right to roam--indeed, many consider that they have that right now. They will believe they have that right wherever, whenever and however they choose. But on the day that this Bill receives Royal Assent almost all of those people will be wrong.
	Should the Committee consider that to be an overstatement, Clause 77 spells it out. The Government cannot have fully considered its implications. On the day of enactment, prison terms for wildlife violations become enforceable. The short titles of the Highways, the Wildlife and Countryside Acts and of this Bill are recognised. The implementation timetable is enforced. Two months later comes an automatic implementation of the provisions relating to access and to excepted land, to coastal land, to mapping, to the designation of appellate powers, to the rules for increasing the protection of wildlife, but not--I emphasise "not"--the amendments to the existing law necessary to enforce them. All the rest happens when the Secretary of State says so and that will depend on the success and timetable of the mapping programme.
	I hope that I have so far demonstrated why we on this side of the Chamber feel that the Bill as it stands is muddled. It tries to cover too many topics in one and will result in confusion for walkers, land managers, local authorities, the police and anyone else who has an interest in the countryside. Indeed, our great fear is that as it stands this Bill will destroy the very things that the Government are trying to protect.
	We are strongly supportive of the increased wildlife protection contained in the Bill; of the attempt to end the delays in the establishment of footpaths and other rights of way and to provide reasonable public access to open country. However, we feel that that will not be achieved without a balance between the various competing interests and full funding from the centre to pay for all the necessary changes.
	English Nature, in its most recent parliamentary briefing, states that the purpose of the Bill can be achieved only with proper funding. Access needs to be managed if the very wilderness and wildlife which so many people prize so highly are not to be adversely affected. English Nature also states that the infrastructure of wardens, notices, information and incentives must be adequately provided. I know that the Minister has great respect for English Nature and its views on wildlife. If it underlines what we on these Benches are saying, I am sure that he will pay great attention.
	The Bill must provide not only a balance and adequate funding; it must also define a clear timetable. At this moment we do not know when the mapping will commence, how it will proceed or when it will finish; nor do we know whether the Secretary of State intends to wait until the whole task is completed before he starts to implement rights of access and so forth.
	We know that the preparations of the invitations to tender were due to be completed by the end of July. I should be grateful to the Minister for his assurance that the project is on time. The process, from the issue of the tender documents to the awards of contracts, will take roughly six months. The mapping will then take from two to seven years. Again, I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance on those points.
	Much of our countryside is already open to access through our national parks, the National Trust and voluntary agreements, but much is closed to the public. Unless the Bill is clearly understood, and its timetable and necessary limitations accepted, those with legitimate interests in private land will find their rights violated and their privacy invaded. Government departments will also come into this category and I wonder how they will cope with the situation where the public believe that they have the right to roam, but where mapping has not been completed, wardens have not yet been appointed, and by-laws are not yet in place.
	I fear that there may be an increase in violence. Already those who manage the land are suffering from the attentions of those who want to take what is not theirs. How much worse it will be if we allow the Bill to pass knowing that its main provisions will not come into operation for years.
	Furthermore, and on the other hand, what about the users? They need to be secure. Walkers must be certain that they have the right information to ensure their safety. Everyone must have a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities.
	The Bill as it stands is a muddle. It covers too much ground and lacks the basics. Every businessman knows that for projects to be successful, they must be simple, measurable, attainable, realistic and timetabled. I have grave doubts whether that is possible, which is why I have tabled this purpose clause. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: I warmly support the amendment. In some ways, it is the most important amendment we have tabled. I should first confess that in the past 130 years there has been only one advisory committee to enable government, Parliament and Whitehall to get the drafting of Acts of Parliament right. It was called the Committee on Preparation of Legislation and I had the honour to be its chairman. Its most important recommendation reads:
	"Statements of purpose ... should be used when they are the most convenient method of clarifying the scope and effect of legislation ... when so used, they should be contained in clauses and not in preambles".
	We might well have recommended that they should not be contained in the Long Title either. This is a long Bill which deals with a variety of issues. A few short phrases in the Long Title does not in law have the effect of enabling the Bill to be properly interpreted and applied.
	The Bill requires much clarification and we shall deal with that during our long discussions. However, in my opinion, it is vital that there should appear at the beginning a statement of purpose of the kind proposed by my noble friend. I do not say that it is perfect or that it cannot be improved. Indeed, in one respect, which I shall mention, it should be improved later. The amendment states:
	"The purpose of this Act is to ... create a structure for mapping countryside in preparation for open access".
	The Bill attempts to do that but we must make it clear that that is one of its purposes. The proposed purpose clause does so. Paragraph (b)--
	"make provision for public access to the countryside"--
	is a broad statement but we later discover in the Bill that public access is not ubiquitous; it is limited. Perhaps paragraph (b) should make it clear that "public access" is as defined in the Bill and not just any public access. In that respect, that paragraph might on Report be amplified.
	The proposal in paragraph (c), which reads,
	"set out a mechanism for granting public access upon completion, in whole or in part, of the mapping process",
	is very good and would help in interpretation. Reference is also made to controlling traffic. Paragraph (e) reads:
	"strengthen the law relating to nature conservation and the protection of wildlife".
	It should be made known at the start that that is one of the main purposes of the Bill.
	I turn to the part of the amendment which I believe requires modification. Paragraph (f) reads:
	"receive Government proposals for developing areas of outstanding natural beauty".
	I am worried about that because "development" nearly always means building of one kind or another. It may be residential, industrial, social or for other purposes, but it is not a purpose of the Bill to encourage, in a broad sense, the development of areas of outstanding natural beauty. Therefore, I believe that that paragraph must be amended.
	Finally, paragraph (g) states:
	"make necessary consequential changes",
	which is a technical phrase.
	I believe that we are indebted to my noble friend for putting forward such a clause. We do not have enough such clauses in our long and complicated Acts of Parliament and I hope that the Government will consider it sympathetically.

Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: I, too, warmly welcome the proposed new clause. It seeks to clarify the central purpose of the legislation which would otherwise be lacking--and to some extent succeeds. However, one aspect of the purpose of the legislation is not covered by the new clause and it is necessary that it should be before we proceed further. I refer to the fact that the legislation must maintain a fair and proper balance between the rights of walkers and the owners of property if it is not to fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights. One of the purposes of the Bill should be to ensure that that is done.
	In my speech at Second Reading I referred to serious doubts about the compatibility of the Bill as it stands with the convention. If those doubts are justified there is a fundamental flaw in the Bill. However, that flaw is capable of rectification. It is necessary to consider that matter now--not to torpedo the Bill but to get it right. As I said at Second Reading, it would be an irony if the right to roam legislation was itself one of the first pieces of new legislation to fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights, which automatically becomes part of the law of this country next week.
	There are three reasons why the legislation in its present form is probably in breach of the convention. First and most important, it provides a right of access without compensation. I believe that that is a breach of Article 1 of the convention which states:
	"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law".
	It was conceded by Mr Meacher on 18th April in another place that this legislation infringed property rights. It is also right to say that property rights are not inviolable or absolute, as is reflected in the second paragraph of Article 1:
	"The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties".
	In the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights Article 1 has been interpreted as a requirement that in any legislation which deprives people of their property rights there should be a fair balance between the demands of the general community and the requirements of their fundamental rights. In the case of this legislation I suggest that in order to determine whether there is a balance one of the most important requirements is to look at the nature of the breach of property rights that is inevitably contained within the legislation and see whether compensation is provided. It is no use saying that compensation is provided if the grant of such compensation is wholly discretionary and depends on the judgment of a public authority rather than a legal right that is enforceable in a court of law.
	In the debates in another place and at Second Reading in this House ample evidence was provided of damage to property rights that would be caused by the legislation. First, anyone who is responsible will be required to provide warnings of hazards on land which has not previously been open to the public. Secondly, there is no doubt that the proper implementation of the legislation will require extra fencing, which is another cost. As the Minister admitted in this House, the extra insurance required is an undoubted further cost. There will also be greater maintenance costs incurred as a result of many more people entering land that is in private ownership than has previously been the case.
	All of this can be dismissed by the other side as de minimis, but that does not cut much ice. If there is not a substantial further entry onto private land compared with what happens now on public rights of way, frankly there is no point in the legislation. The Bill is designed to ensure substantial further access. Therefore, greater maintenance costs and the other expenses to which I have referred will undoubtedly be incurred.
	As has been said so often by the Government Front Bench--it has been repeated rather like a mantra--even if there is no extra legal liability, that has no relevance. It is one thing to say that the formal legal liability is not increased, but if a hugely increased number of people trample over land there can be no question about the much greater cost of complying with the legal liability which may not be formally greater. There is also the potential loss of value of land about which there has been a good deal of argument. I do not believe that anyone can responsibly dismiss that as an irrelevant fact.
	We have a situation in which there is a diminution in property rights and the possibility of substantial extra costs being incurred. The question of compensation arises in determining whether the good granted to the general public by the right of access outweighs the diminution of property rights which necessarily flows from this legislation.
	It was said in the recent case of Lithgow v United Kingdom:
	"Compensation terms are material to the assessment of whether a fair balance has been struck between the various interests at stake and, notably, whether a disproportionate burden has been imposed on the person deprived of his possessions".
	Clearly, in looking at that balance it is highly relevant to ask whether there has been compensation. In looking at balance, it is also appropriate to consider not merely the possible grant of compensation but whether there has been an historic precedent for it in this country long before the European convention gained the force of law. One had the famous statement of Lord Silkin on the passage of the 1949 Act and the Act itself which provided for compensation. It is no use saying, as Ministers have said in previous debates, that Conservative or Labour governments--it matters not which--have produced legislation that has not granted compensation. The relevance of it is that, now we have the European Convention on Human Rights, these matters must be looked at in a consistent and fair way.
	If the Government are to provide an honest and fair certificate of compliance with the European convention, the question is how the balance between the deprivation of property rights and the interests of the general public is to be interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. To help us assess that question we have the precedent of the Chassagnou case. That is an ironic precedent in that hunters were allowed by statute to go onto people's land against their wishes. That was a curious piece of legislation, to say the least. It was held that, even though compensation was granted to those who might have lost property rights as a result, that was not sufficient to avoid the finding of a breach of the convention. I quote from the judgment in that case:
	"In the present case the applicants do not wish to hunt on their land and object to the fact that others may come onto their land to hunt. However, although opposed to hunting on ethical grounds, they are obliged to tolerate the presence of armed men and gun dogs on their land every year. This restriction on the free exercise of the right of use undoubtedly constitutes an interference with the applicants' enjoyment of their rights as the owners of property. Accordingly, the second paragraph of Article 1 is applicable in the case".
	It is ironic that the particular case that I cite should be of that character, but the principle is the same. It is clear that the Court found that the granting of rights to people on other people's land amounted to a breach of the convention. It is also relevant to show that if discretionary compensation is provided that is not sufficient to provide a proper balance to the grant of the right to go on to other people's land for whatever purpose, whether it be to walk or whether it be to hunt, because later in the judgment it states:
	"As to the assertion that it was open to the applicants to ask for their land to be included in a game reserve or nature reserve"--
	which is comparable to some of the provisions in the present legislation--
	"the Court notes that neither the ACCAs, nor the Minister nor the prefect are required to grant such requests from private individuals, as shown by the refusals of the applicants' requests in the present case".
	From that it becomes clear that the provision of compensation on a discretionary basis is not sufficient to prevent the Act biting. I suggest that there is a powerful case that the grant of a right to roam without legal compensation would be held to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights which is about to become part of the law of this country.
	But there is a second reason to think that that might be the case. That relates to the mapping provisions. They are of course crucial as they determine the land to which the rights apply. Maps are to be produced in provisional form and landowners have a right of appeal against the designation of land as open country. But there is no requirement that there should be notification that their land is being included. There is only a general notice and people have to look at that general notice before knowing whether their land is included. I think that it is highly arguable that the absence of a notification provision is a breach of Article 6 of the convention. A right of appeal is only capable of being exercised--as the convention requires it to be permitted to be exercised--if the person knows that circumstances have arisen which affect him and might give rise to a right of appeal.
	Thirdly, I believe that the Bill in its present form is in breach of the requirements of the convention that the determination of one's rights should be by an independent and impartial tribunal. Here the appeal is to the Secretary of State against a decision of a government agency. An important case has been decided on this very point since our last debate on 25th July. That is Country Properties Ltd v Scottish Ministers.

Lord Renton: In which court was the case decided?

Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: It was decided in the Court of Session. It held that the decision of the Scottish Executive to call in a listed building application because of the concerns of their agency, Scottish Heritage, was contrary to Article 6. Whether the situation here is on all fours is not free from doubt. The question is whether the Countryside Agency would be considered in the same situation as Scottish Heritage. However, the parallel is uncomfortably close and if I were a Minister I would be extremely worried about having given that certificate of compliance with the convention after the decision of a Scottish court only a couple of months ago. That matter could be remedied if, instead of providing for an appeal to the Secretary of State, a provision was introduced providing for appeal to the Lands Tribunal. That would be a completely different matter. Therefore, I would suggest that the concerns about compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights are cumulatively considerable. They could and should be remedied by granting, first, a right to compensation; secondly, granting a right to notice if one's land is going to be affected by the mapping provisions; and, thirdly, by providing a truly independent appeal from a decision of the Countryside Agency, perhaps to the Lands Tribunal.
	I have no subversive intent in raising these concerns, which sound very fundamental. This is not designed to undermine the Bill as a whole; nor does it have that effect. But I think that, in the face of the very recent decision of the Court of Session, the Government would be unwise to shelter behind whatever legal advice they have had in the past, especially in the face of a powerful judgment delivered after that advice was given. I hope therefore that one of the central purposes of the legislation to create that proper balance as required by the European Convention on Human Rights can be achieved in our subsequent debates as it has not been achieved as yet.

Lord Williamson of Horton: Although I have not long been a Member of your Lordships' House, I know that Governments are not very fond of purpose clauses and are inclined to say that the purpose of all the legislation they present is self-evident and that issues are already fully covered in the Long Title, to which reference has already been made. I fear that Long Titles are rather like the old definition of notes in the field of diplomacy; that is to say, they are absolutely correct but not very useful.
	Within the proposed purpose clause which has been put forward as Amendment No. 1 there are some specific elements which I hope we can get right in the Bill. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised them before we reach Clause 1. I think it is important that we deal with these points now. I make this point because I am broadly in support of the Bill and I do not think that it needs 567 amendments as currently proposed. But I believe that it is in everyone's interests that the introduction of the right to roam and the changes in relation to public rights of way and road traffic should be brought into effect with the minimum of contention and disagreement.
	That is why I am glad to see that in the proposed Amendment No. 1 we are plunging straight into the question of the availability of maps, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made specific reference. Under Clause 4 it will be the duty of the Countryside Agency in England and the Countryside Council for Wales to prepare maps which show all registered common land and all open country and, after publication and possible appeals, to publish them under Clause 9 in conclusive form or in certain circumstances in provisional form. But what about the timing? That is the vital question if the Bill is to come into law and to work. It is important because walkers, landowners and occupiers all agree that they need to know accurately which land is open for access. That is an essential underlying point for the whole Bill. We do not want disputes on the ground about the implementation of this major and generally positive development for which the Bill makes provision.
	There are two ways to deal with the question. One method is that proposed in Amendment No. 1, which we are now discussing, and again in Amendment No. 84, which we shall come to shortly; that is to say, to make an explicit link between granting public access and the completion, in whole or in part, of the mapping process. That is the first point. Are we going to do that and stick with that?
	The second point is that the Government must give firm commitments on the timing of the completion of the mapping process because of the risks that many of us see in the period between the enactment of the legislation and the completion of the maps. This demand for a timetable is exactly in line with the views of a number of associations who have written to us. There are plenty of them, I may say. But on this point the Ramblers' Association quite explicitly asked for a timetable for the mapping process. I do not believe that that process is impossible. If we build that into the purpose clause as currently proposed, that element will need to be clarified.
	I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will tell us the view of the Government on the substantive question of the explicit link between access and the completion of the mapping process and on a possible timetable for that process.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I wish to follow the noble Lord's speech with an additional point on the same lines which he from the Cross Benches and from his background in the Civil Service perhaps would not want to make.
	I must declare an interest. For 32 years I was an owner-occupier of a sizeable farm. I have not been involved in that for more than 10 years so it is a past interest, but I still live in the same place in the countryside, among the people who live and work there. I did not speak at Second Reading because many other speakers in the debate knew all about how the countryside works and because I live in Scotland and Part I of the Bill is about England. At the end of July I was not sure whether I thought that my noble friend's amendment was a good idea. But a great deal has happened across the United Kingdom over the Recess and that has made me change my mind. The amendment is important for clarity. The Government should heed that point.
	The feeling of resentment among country people has grown enormously since the end of July. They feel that the Government are legislating in a way which disregards and damages their interests and that the Government simply do not understand country living. They feel that the Government do not understand that the use of a car is unavoidable in the countryside and that the price of fuel is crucial to farming. They feel that the Government do not understand that the whole basis of the culture of many country people is horses and that everything that happens in parts of the countryside is affected by hunting. People are feeling greatly alienated.
	The issue of access is potentially another damaging element of the feeling between country people and town people. Country people want more access to the countryside just as much as town people want it. I am not referring to the important points made by my noble friend Lord Brittan, which I thought were very interesting. I should think that the Government are shivering in their shoes, having listened to that speech. I am talking about how country people and town people feel. They are interested in access. They want it to work. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, a great deal of confusion will be created by people thinking that they will have access as soon as the Bill becomes law and then finding that they do not have it until there is a map. The long pause between the time of understanding that access is possible and the creation of the map will cause a good deal of trouble. People will confront one another. There will be dogs about where country people feel that dogs should not be about. There will be people spooking about in the dark when country people do not want them spooking about. Country people themselves will not be sure whether they can roam on the local gallops. The whole thing is a terrible muddle.
	Clarity is needed at the beginning of the Bill. A clause which can be quoted in government leaflets sent to every household and in posters put up in the countryside would be very helpful. My noble friend Lady Byford has done a useful service in tabling the amendment. I do not know whether the Government will accept it. I notice that the Minister is looking rather amused by what I am saying. Perhaps he is right, but I hope that he is not amused by the prospect of what may happen if such clarity is not in the Bill. There will be a good deal of trouble in the countryside and in the towns, which depend on the countryside for the health of their economies, if there is not such clarity in the Bill. It is a genuine point. I support the amendment.

Lord Bridges: I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on purpose clauses. This is not the first time the noble Lord has spoken to us on that subject and he is indeed very convincing. I should like to support the reservations he expressed about paragraph (f) of the clause, which refers to,
	"Government proposals for developing areas of outstanding natural beauty".
	I do so, first, because that is not what the Bill actually does and, secondly, because that is not what it should be doing. It should be providing greater protection to the areas of outstanding natural beauty. I spoke to that effect at Second Reading. I shall not therefore be able to support the amendment unless the noble Baroness is able to give us some assurance that should her amendment be carried she will be willing to see it further amended to ensure that we are talking about the protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty and not their development. The present system is defective in this area. We have an opportunity to put it right. A purpose clause would be misleading if it gave the impression that it does at the moment.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Like my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, I find myself in sympathy with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. In particular, I find myself in sympathy with the approach of the new clause to the whole business of mapping. Subsections (1)(a) and (b) of Clause 1 refer to the need for proper mapping before public access is granted. They contrast with the loose provisions for mapping in the rest of Clause 1. I am particularly concerned with the immediate access provided to all land more than 600 metres above sea level--that is, land above 1,968 feet--whether mapped or not. That will lead to all kinds of difficulties and confusion. The public will naturally think that they have a right to roam such land at will, whether or not there is a right of way to it from the foothills. When they get there, how are they to know without some mapping guidance that they are safely within such access land and not wandering outside it and possibly trespassing on other people's property?
	The NFU made the point clearly to me in a letter of 22nd June. It pointed out that land over 600 metres and indeed common land,
	"does not exist in isolation and access to it may or may not be across open country. Hence there is a need for the mapping programme to be completed before the new right comes into force, as otherwise confusion will reign which would not be in the interests of either walkers or owners and occupiers of land".
	The NFU went on to say:
	"There is a serious risk of an assumption in the public's mind (which some may encourage) that the passing of the Bill will confer an immediate right for walkers to go almost anywhere they want, well before mapping has been completed, the Schedule 2 restrictions have been brought into force, and wardens appointed to resolve difficulties for visitors and occupiers alike".
	That is absolutely right. We should be foolish to ignore such warnings. It is clear that the proper approach should be that all the access land is mapped before access is granted.
	I happen to know that the Countryside Council for Wales, which will be responsible for mapping in the Principality, is concerned to ensure that access land is properly mapped before access becomes available. I am sure that that is the right line to follow if we are to avoid a chaotic situation. I do not think that we are requiring too much in asking that the Government respect the purpose clause advanced by my noble friend. A great deal of basic work has already been done. Ordnance Survey has recently completed highly detailed Explorer maps of Wales which track registered footpaths, bridleways, field walls and fences. However, I suspect that those maps will require adaptation to meet the terms of the Bill, as well as distribution to interested parties and so forth.
	It seems to me that the key point that the Government need to address here is whether it would not be better to complete the work before the Bill becomes law, rather than make sweeping declarations as regards unmapped access land, as has been done in Clause 1. It is clear that the Government are aware of the issue and, as regards open country and registered common land, have provided for mapping in subsections (1)(a) and (b) of Clause 1, but for some peculiar reason they have left out of the mapping requirement other kinds of land. Why on earth are we to have such disparate treatment of different kinds of land? I argue that there should be consistency in the Government's approach and consistency within Clause 1, such as that which has been proposed in my noble friend's new clause.

Earl Peel: I, too, thank my noble friend for moving this amendment. It gives us an opportunity to discuss in more detail some of the fundamental issues that were not dealt with at Second Reading.
	Perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest as an owner of land, the majority of which will be affected by the provisions in the Bill. Having got that out of the way, perhaps I may now concentrate my comments in support of this amendment on what I regard as the potential conflict between Parts I and III of the Bill, which both relate directly to subsections (b) and (e) of my noble friend's amendment.
	There can be no doubt about the deep concern felt by many--conservationists and land managers alike--that the Government are pressing ahead with the new access proposals without having seriously considered the management implications for wildlife. Unless these are dealt with and thought through with extreme care, I believe that the proposals could undermine Part III of the Bill.
	I need hardly remind the Government of their obligations as regards the environment via the Biodiversity Action Plan and European habitat and birds directives, as well as taking into account the next inundation of a raft of SPAs, SACs and goodness knows what else. However, in the past, whenever doubts arose about the impact of any activity on the environment--not only that of access--the "precautionary principle" would apply. I do not know what has happened to that principle, but nowadays--if I may put it like this--there appears to be an almost sinister disregard for it, perhaps at the expense of political expediency. I do not know whether that is the case, but that is my feeling and I know of others who have expressed the same view.
	As I mentioned at Second Reading, the EU has produced a lengthy tome on the whole question of the precautionary principle. I understand that it is now enshrined in European environmental law and therefore we must adhere to it. The document makes an important point by setting out the need to ensure that, when there is a void in our knowledge, appropriate research is carried out. I would suggest to the Minister that the level of research required to ensure that the likely impact on wildlife and wildlife management as a result of increased access is not excessive has not been completed to anything like a satisfactory level.
	To the best of my knowledge, four separate pieces of research have been undertaken specifically to look into this question; namely, the impact of access on ground-nesting birds--which is the nub of what we are discussing here. The research which perhaps has been quoted most often is that carried out some time ago by Derek Yaldon in the Peak District National Park. It showed a clear correlation between the inability of golden plover to establish territories and human disturbance. That was, I believe, the most comprehensive piece of work to have been undertaken so far.
	Other research includes that conducted by Dr David Hill et al which states:
	"Evidence suggests that levels of disturbance could be considerable, with significant implications for bird conservation".
	Another report was produced by Penny Anderson Consultants. It concluded with a statement to the effect that:
	"There is a demonstrable effect of recreational disturbance on the more sensitive birds".
	Finally, in his report published on behalf of the Ramblers' Association, Roger Sidaway states that:
	"On present evidence it appears that four upland waders, curlew, golden plover, redshank and common sandpiper, are probably the species most susceptible to disturbance".
	I fully acknowledge that these reports are generally thought to be inconclusive, but they appear to contain two common strands: first, that disturbance could very well be a problem; and, secondly, that comprehensive research is necessary before informed decision making can take place. I would suggest that that is essential if the access provisions contained in the Bill are to be introduced in a way that will not compromise nature conservation and management and thus undermine the provisions set out in Part III.
	I was also interested to note that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, in its recently distributed brief on the Bill, stated that:
	"Disturbance is widely perceived as having a significant impact on wildlife, especially ground nesting birds. However, few research studies have been carried out to test this hypothesis in any habitats, let alone in open country".
	The other day I spoke to Dr David Baines, the head of the upland unit of the Game Conservancy Trust, of which I have the honour to be president. He agreed that the lack of evidence was of real concern. He went on to mention another dimension of the problem, which I think is also important; namely, the strong possibility of an interaction between disturbance and predation on ground-nesting birds. That could have significant repercussions. We already know, as a result of a recent survey conducted jointly by the RSPB and the GCT, that on managed grousemoors where predator control is an essential part of that management, ground-nesting birds fare infinitely better than those on non-managed heather moors. I suggest that that point should never be forgotten.
	We also need to consider the sad situation that is now to be found on Dartmoor, where open access has been in place for some time. There is no shadow of a doubt as regards the plight of some ground-nesting birds. Their position is indeed dire. Many are now on the verge of extinction. Perhaps I may offer noble Lords some figures: the number of lapwings has fallen from 54 pairs in 1979 to between 16 and 19 pairs today; the number of curlews has fallen from 23 pairs to between three and four; and golden plover have virtually disappeared.
	Those figures are extremely worrying. I remain deeply concerned, not only about the possible implications of access to these birds but about the total lack of action that appears to be happening on Dartmoor to see how these problems can be addressed.
	I raise these points not to be difficult or obstructive but because I believe that it is essential that we get clear commitments from the Minister that the access provisions in the Bill will not be allowed to compromise wildlife and its management.
	Of course I appreciate that there are provisions in the Bill to allow for closure orders, by-laws and the rest, but how on earth can sensible, worthwhile decisions be made if the proper research has not been undertaken to give people the information they require to make these decisions? I am sure that during the course of the Bill the Committee will come back to what the Minister, Mr Meacher, has said on a number of occasions: that nothing in the Bill must compromise the well-being of the economy of local communities, management and wildlife. Those words may end up being rather hollow unless we can conduct ourselves in such a way as to be absolutely sure that the effects of the Bill will not undermine those issues.
	I ask the Minister to give two commitments. First, will he ensure that such research will be conducted before the access provisions in the Bill are implemented? I suspect that the mapping process will take some time and that he will have several years in which to get this research started? Secondly, will he ensure that the precautionary principle prevails until such time as research has been carried out and we can proceed forward confidently with the combination of access and wildlife management?

Lord Hardy of Wath: I had not intended to speak on this amendment but as noble Lords are touching upon matters almost in a Second Reading way, I thought I should say a few words in regard to the effects of irresponsible access.
	The vast majority of people who want to enjoy the British countryside will cause no problem. However, we have to recognise that there are those who, through ignorance or sheer ill-will, inflict a great deal of damage. From my own observations during the past two or three years, I can think of half a dozen skylark nests which have been destroyed; I saw a four-wheel drive vehicle wipe out the nest of a little ringed plover; I can point to two sites within a reasonable distance of my home where lapwings were driven off. All three species need our care and attention.
	I hope that during the passage of the Bill we shall see the Government avoid the accusation of attempting to square the circle of, on the one hand, providing for massive rights of access and, on the other, giving a full commitment to the survival of wildlife.
	I recall saying to Mr Meacher some months ago that I should like an answer to what I described to him as the "lady's slipper orchid" question. In 1975 I took the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act through the Commons. English Nature--the Nature Conservancy Council in those days--provided a list of species of flora and fauna which were endangered. One of them was the lady's slipper orchid, to which I have referred in previous debates but the point needs making again. In 1976 there was one lady's slipper orchid left in the United Kingdom. I believe that it is hanging on. Its location is a secret which has been thoroughly kept. I asked Mr Meacher what steps would be taken to ensure that a responsible rambler does not put his size 10 boot on the lady's slipper orchid; or, if the site is known in an attempt to secure protection, that some thief will not come along to take it. It would be a very attractive item for a thief to take.
	The nature conservancy bodies at national level may be less anxious about the Bill than some of the organisations which flourish at local level. If a local naturalist trust or some other similar body has responsibility for a site where such a rare species exists, how can it be sure that it can protect that species by giving ecology a greater priority than access? I hope that the question will be answered in the debates as the Bill proceeds through the House. If it is not answered, the Government will not gain all the credit they deserve in so many ways in this field.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord made a very interesting speech--I agree with him--but does it lead him to the conclusion that my noble friend's amendment which clarifies the purposes of the Bill, should be supported or not?

Baroness Masham of Ilton: The public roam all over the place at the moment. I should like to give the Committee an example. Only last Friday, a gate was left open and about 100 of my sheep roamed onto a golf course. No one was very pleased about that situation. Will the Government give guidelines to the public that they must respect stock in fields? Control of the public is not easy. We who farm need help in dealing with the public, who can become very aggressive.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: A purpose clause debate on the Bill would have been useful if it had helped to draw together the strands we heard about at Second Reading; it would have been useful if it had painted more of the vision of where we are trying to get to with the Bill, which we support in general. The purpose clause should have mentioned the management of the natural resources of the countryside and the paths network to the benefit of the people and wildlife; it should have looked at regenerating rural communities through the wider use of the countryside. It reaches out towards doing some of that but it still has a long way to go.
	It is very silent on resourcing, a matter which comes up time again as a major issue for user groups, land owners and access authorities. It is silent, too, on the issue of educating people. During the summer I talked to all manner of people about the Bill and found that they had a lack of education and knowledge of how to use the countryside. Far more guidance should be given in the Bill about access and closures.
	The Bill is silent on giving local people--whether users, landowners or access authorities--a real, true say in the actions that the Countryside Agency will take as a result of this legislation. There should be far more of a link between people wanting to resource the countryside and farmers being seen as countryside stewards, and happily paying for that. For instance, there has been a missed opportunity with the reform of the hill farmers allowance. There are a number of criteria for enhancing that allowance but, even knowing that the legislation was coming, that has not been mentioned as a possible criteria. Indeed, if one has a land holding of more than 700 hectares, one will not get any enhancement--but one might be the landowner who will be under the greatest pressure regarding access.
	Drawing together those kinds of strands will be very useful. Our amendments aim to do that, but I do not believe that this purpose clause does so. A purpose clause should mention something about bringing together people who could do a lot for the countryside. I must declare an interest as the vice-president of the British Trust of Conservation Volunteers, an organisation which is dedicated to enhancing the future of the countryside. It works with people on the New Deal, with people who at the moment have no future, to harness their energies and enthusiasm to produce a different picture in terms of path erosion and to provide other great benefits which they can bring through their schemes. At present, too many of the Conservative amendments tend to divide users and owners and set them at loggerheads. The theme of our amendments will be local cohesion and agreement.
	The purpose clause relating to the rights of way network presents difficulty. For these Benches, the rights of way network referred to in Part II represents a missed opportunity. The purpose should be to enable the network to be maintained and enhanced for the benefit of all users; to promote linkages of the fragmented parts of the network; and to enable simple mechanisms for diversions and changes which benefit landowners and users alike, and which do not harm the network. Part II does not even approach that vision at this stage.
	The reference to "developing" AONBs was probably a misuse of language. I am sure that that was not intended in the spirit of the new clause. Surely its intention is to protect them.
	There is presently a large hole in the Bill. I should have liked to see the inclusion of commons and village greens, which the Bill does little to protect. They are an essential part of access although they are often only pockets of land. In examining the question of open access, we should protect the small as well as the large.
	Finally, wildlife protection is a cosy, "huggy" area, so there is wide consensus. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, in his comment on species protection. It is a matter that we shall examine--if we ever get to Part III, as we all very much hope. The message through the summer--from people dedicated to wildlife and from those with merely a passing interest, but who are horrified at its decline--has been one of nervousness about the Bill. They do not want to see the Bill disappear--if only because they are keen on greater wildlife protection. We have a vision of how the Bill can be improved and we mean to help the Government to achieve that vision in the coming days.

Lord Mancroft: How do the noble Baroness and her party regard the precautionary principle and the research referred to by my noble friend Lord Peel?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Briefly--I do not want to take up the time of the Committee--we have tabled an amendment with regard to the precautionary principle and wildlife. We shall explore issues relating to nuisance and aggravation through our amendment extending the exclusion period to 27 days instead of one day. It is an area that we are interested to explore.

Lord Marlesford: I declare an interest as president of the Suffolk Preservation Society and as a farmer in Suffolk. I believe that some of my land will be affected by the Bill.
	We owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend for introducing the amendment for two reasons. The first relates to the merit that purpose clauses have. It was well spelt out by my noble friend Lord Renton. So far as I am aware, purpose clauses as a principle of good legislative practice have never been challenged. The principle may not have been used as often as it should have been. This Bill presents a good opportunity.
	Secondly, I should like to applaud and say how enlightened I was by the masterful and authoritative speech of my noble friend Lord Brittan. I ask the Minister whether, when he gaily signed the statement on the European Convention on Human Rights, he had received anything like the quality of advice that my noble friend has just given. It is all too easy for Ministers just to sign bits of paper placed in front of them by civil servants. This is a serious aspect of the Bill.
	As I drove to the House today I was able to listen to a fascinating radio programme in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was interviewed about the effect of the new Act and the European convention. I suggest that unless the Government have very good evidence to refute the contentions of my noble friend Lord Brittan, they should assure us that they will re-examine this important point.
	I hope that the Bill eventually becomes law. It contains much that is good. But we simply cannot allow legislation to slip through if it is not properly drafted and will not work. That would bring no credit on Parliament or the Government. Most of all, it would not help the relationship between those who live and work in the countryside and those who visit it--a relationship which it should be the object of any government to improve.

Lord Mancroft: I begin by declaring an interest. I regret to inform Members of the Committee that mine is among the "contorted faces" so disliked by the Deputy Prime Minister in Brighton. I am sorry about that; however, I am a board member of the Countryside Alliance, whose members naturally have a considerable interest in the Bill.
	Unlike my noble friend Lord Renton, I am not a huge fan of purpose clauses, but there is no doubt that they are immensely useful in a big Bill which is not entirely clear. I use the phrase carefully. There is no doubt that the Bill as it stands is a muddle. It is a major piece of government legislation. It is referred to as a "flagship" Bill--with 78 clauses, 11 schedules and 114 pages. I regret to say that as we start the spill-over period--the earliest in this House that I can remember--we are embarking on only the first day of debate in the Committee stage of a huge piece of legislation. We must examine 567 amendments, because, for a variety of reasons, the other place was incapable of looking the Bill in detail. The Bill has not been examined. Whether or we approve of it in principle or approve of different parts of it, it is a government manifesto flagship Bill and will probably end up on the statute book. I say "probably" because it is incredibly late to be examining such a huge Bill. We are already running out of time. The Government will need to do a great deal of hard work if they want the Bill to reach the statute book. I, for one, should like that to happen. The fact that a purpose clause is necessary at this comparatively late stage in order to clarify the Bill's aims is a reflection of the state in which the Bill reached this House.
	My noble friend's amendment will achieve one or two important things. It will, for instance, ensure that an appropriate procedure is in place introducing the access provisions. That must be right. It will clarify the process for those wishing to exercise the new right of access and prevent it being abused prior to the completion of the mapping process. Other Members of the Committee touched on that important point. Already, over the course of the summer, we have heard instances of people thinking that the legislation is already in place and going on to private land in the belief that they already have the right to roam, and not understanding how the Bill is meant to work. If that is already happening, we can imagine what will happen in the future.
	In order to guarantee user confidence in the right of access, it is important that completed maps of access should be freely available--obviously, that cannot happen if they have not been drawn. That would give walkers--and indeed landowners--the assurance that they are not trespassing and that they are not even liable to put safety at risk or inadvertently damage an SSSI, which no one who has spoken in this debate wants to happen.
	The amendment will also enhance the confidence of landowners and managers. That is very important. The point was made by my noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lady Carnegy. The issue of access has much to do with the confidence of landowners and managers. At present, the Government do not have that confidence; they need to work harder to achieve it. I hope that the amendment will go some way to help in that process.
	Therefore, for all those reasons, even though, as I said, I am not in favour of such amendments on the whole, I believe that this would be useful; indeed, it would be a useful way of starting what I suspect will be some very long days during which we shall look through the details of the Bill.

Lord Whitty: I was most grateful to the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. She concentrated a good deal on the need for a purpose clause as such rather than widening the debate. By and large, those noble Lords who followed her did likewise. A number of other areas were also mentioned which may perhaps pre-empt later debate but upon which I shall not comment in detail. I shall focus, as far as I can, on the need for a purpose clause, or otherwise, and on the nature of the purpose clause. In so doing, I shall address some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness and echoed in subsequent speeches.
	I completely understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that basically virtually all legislation should have a purpose clause so as to allow for greater clarity. Indeed, there is much to be said for that argument. However, despite the noble Lord's advocacy over the years for such a procedure, that is not the way that this Chamber has normally operated; nor is it the way the Parliament has operated. The question therefore arises: why should we have a purpose clause in this specific Bill as compared to other pieces of legislation? Why, for example, should the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, be convinced that we need one in this case and not in other such cases?
	The main argument put forward is that this is a very complex Bill. I have to point out that this is not a complex Bill; it is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation. As the Committee will know, both I and my colleagues have been responsible for bringing various pieces of legislation before this place; for example, several local government Bills, education Bills, a Treaty of Amsterdam Bill and the GLA Bill. Much comment has been made in this House on those Bills, sometimes disparagingly. They are extremely complex Bills, but this is not. Similarly, it is not an over-long Bill. It deals with three issues upon which I believe there is a degree of consensus within the Chamber, at least in principle.
	The Bill deals with the question of extending access to open countryside, subject to sensible restrictions. Indeed, the argument is about the restrictions and not about the principles. It represents a long overdue rationalisation of the rights of way provisions and deals with the protection of wildlife, including wildlife that might be threatened by some of the Bill's other provisions, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. There are three straightforward principles involved. It is a pretty straightforward Bill, with a limited number of clauses on each of those three parts and schedules--

Lord Renton: I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I am most grateful to him and have been following what he has said with great interest. In effect, he said that this is a fairly straightforward and simple Bill. However, is not the difficulty here--it is unavoidable, and I do not blame the Government for it--the fact that there are a number of conflicts of interest that arise within the Bill; for example, the desire of many people to roam the countryside at will, as well as the desire, and the need, for the protection of wildlife and of the environment? Such conflicts make the Bill difficult. We must do all that we can to get Parliament's intention right. A purpose clause would help us in that aim.

Lord Whitty: I am not saying that no difficulties or conflicts arise as a result of the Bill, as is the case with other pieces of legislation. It is the job of this Chamber to consider such matters in some detail. However, I am saying that it is not such an extraordinarily complex piece of proposed legislation as to require a different approach from other pieces of legislation. Many issues will be raised in the 567 amendments that have been tabled. I do not believe that the Bill is so complex as some of those amendments and the arguments behind them would suggest. Nevertheless, there are detailed areas, including issues of quite substantial conflict of interest, that will need to be addressed. I do not believe that there is a special reason for us to have a purpose clause in this Bill when such a clause is not present in most of our legislation.
	The three main purposes of the Bill are reflected in the Long Title. Some considerable explanation of its effects when it reaches the statute book and the various parts of the Bill come into operation will be required and will be discussed later in the proceedings.
	The point that I should like to address most strongly in relation to what the noble Baroness said is the concern felt in some quarters that immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent all its provisions will come into effect. Indeed, the noble Baroness stressed that that is already the case. If that is so, the matter clearly needs to be addressed. Much of the Bill will not be instantaneous. I imagine that we shall be discussing such issues at length when we discuss Clause 77, which deals with the commencement proceedings. Noble Lords will be able to address such issues at that time, but I should like to make a few comments at this stage.
	The right of access to the countryside is dependent on the mechanism set out in the Bill both for bringing forward the right in the first place and for managing it once it is in force. I should like to make it clear from these Benches that the rights of access do not come into immediate effect; they are not there already. The Government and the other organisations involved in the process--local government, landowners and the countryside agencies--will need to make it clear to the general public that these provisions can come into effect only once the preparatory work has been completed. A very substantial part of that preparatory work regarding Part I of the Bill relates to the mapping process to which the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and the noble Lords, Lord Brittan and Mancroft, referred.
	We expect that the overall process--that is to say, the totality of the mapping process--to provide for the implementation of right may take up to five years. That will allow for a full process of detailed mapping, for consultation and for appeals on those maps. It will also allow for owners and others with interests in land to seek directions to allow closures and restrictions to be in place before the right comes into effect. As noble Lords have said, there is a provision as regards the fast track that we will be debating when we reach the next group of clauses. If it is adopted, that would allow for earlier access but only to registered common land and to mountain land. Such a process would take a minimum of 18 months to two years to complete. Nevertheless, it would still ensure that closures and restrictions were in place after being subject to such consultation but before the implementation of the fast track. I understand the anxieties of the noble Baroness about commencement. I hope that I have clarified the position and that it will be further clarified especially in relation to Clause 77.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also referred to the financial side of the Bill. It may be convenient for me to say something now about the funding because I imagine that the issue will arise later in the proceedings. Members of the Committee may have noticed that the DETR has a public service agreement target of opening all of this land by the year 2005. During the current spending review--that is, the next three years--our intention is to provide sufficient funds to enable the mapping and the preparations to go ahead so that all categories of access land can be opened by that target date. It is to be hoped that some land will be opened before that time, but that date is the target for the totality of the land. Therefore, the provisions for the current spending period relate to the preparatory work rather than the administration of the system once in force. It is more difficult for me to give specific figures on the funding that will be required once access is opened because that is beyond the current spending review period and depends on the detailed decisions taken during that mapping process.
	According to the regulatory impact assessment, the amount considered necessary to implement the statutory obligations of the Bill was identified as a cost to the public sector of up to £2.3 million. However, to ensure the successful implementation of the new rights when they come into effect after the period of the current review, we are thinking in terms of a figure four or five times that amount. I hope that that assures noble Lords that there will be adequate funding for the Countryside Agency, the access authorities, landlords and others to improve the management of access on their land once such rights come into effect. I hope that goes some way to answer some of the funding points.
	A number of issues were raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, mentioned the important issue of human rights. I do not want to respond to that matter now because when we discuss the clauses which concern liability and compensation I am sure that it will be debated at length. However, I accept the central point that it is important for the Government to assure the Committee--and for the Committee to feel assured--that the provisions of the Bill do not conflict with the provisions of the Human Rights Act. I therefore accept the challenge that we should debate those important points in the course of these proceedings.

Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: Does the noble Lord agree that since the statement of conformity was made on the face of the Bill there have been important developments, including the decision of the Court of Session? Will he give serious consideration to whether the statement that has been made can stand in the face of both that judgment and some of the fresh arguments that have been put forward on this issue?

Lord Whitty: I am confident that the legal advice that we were given when the declarations were made will stand. Nevertheless, I take the noble Lord's point. I shall ensure that by the time we reach the relevant stages of the Bill we shall have assessed whether we need to take a different view in any respect in the light of those legal developments. At this stage I shall not discuss that matter further. I recognise the importance of the issue that the noble Lord has raised and the way in which it is viewed by the landowning community. More generally, we need to be able to assure the Chamber--on this legislation as with other pieces of legislation--that such declarations are valid.

Viscount Bledisloe: If the noble Lord does not accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, will he ensure that we do not merely receive a reiteration of the one-line sentence that the Government consider that the Bill complies with the relevant rights, but that we are given a reasoned argument or opinion dealing with the specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, rather than a mere bland assurance that everything is all right?

Lord Whitty: I think that the noble Viscount is familiar with the convention that we do not disclose legal opinion given to Ministers. Nevertheless, I can assure him that he will receive a reasoned reply to such points which will reflect the legal advice received.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to land over 600 metres high. I believe that we shall debate that matter almost immediately. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind if I do not speak in detail on that now.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred to the general issue of the precautionary principle. We shall no doubt address that matter in great detail when we reach Part III. I accept that there is some "cross over" with some parts of Part I in that regard, but I shall not respond directly to that point now as we are discussing a purpose clause. The general matters of information and education which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, mentioned arise in a later amendment which she has tabled. I hope that we can discuss that matter when we reach that amendment and at other points during the course of the Bill.

Earl Peel: I raised another issue which I believe to be fundamental; namely, the question of research into the impacts of access on ground-nesting birds. Can the Minister give us an assurance now that before the access provisions of the Bill are implemented, proper research will be carried out to ensure that those who make the decisions will have the necessary information made available to them to take those important decisions?

Lord Whitty: I reiterate that that is not germane to discussion of the proposed purpose clause. The precautionary principle (in so far as it applies to the wildlife provisions) will be discussed. In so far as that research affects the implementation of other aspects of the Bill--in particular, Part I--the timetable that I have outlined allows us to take into account any significant new information arising from such research. However, I believe that the provisions stand up to the research that has so far been received.
	I hope that I have given the noble Baroness a general indication of why I do not think that it is necessary for us to adopt a purpose clause. However, were the Committee to feel differently, I should point out that the proposed purpose clause contains drafting deficiencies. For example, there is no reference to the rights of way provisions which make up a substantial part of the Bill. As drafted, the reference in paragraph (c) of the proposed new clause would conflict with the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill which provides for the fast track which we are about to debate. As drafted, paragraph (d) suggests the control of traffic in AONBs. However, that is not the point of the reference to traffic which relates to the rights of way provisions. As others have said, the reference to development in AONBs could be considered ambiguous. Therefore, even if the Committee were to be convinced of the principle mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the proposed new clause would not meet that intention.
	It may be helpful to the conduct of the rest of today's business if I indicate broadly the areas where the Government have concluded, in considering the amendments that have been tabled and other representations that have been made, that we are prepared to make some move at some later stage, although not necessarily in the form of the amendments that are before the Committee. I shall indicate those areas to give greater guidance to the Committee as to the conduct of the business. We intend to move further on Report on some issues and to give serious consideration to others. The areas where we intend to move further on Report include local access forums, which are addressed in the group of amendments which commences with Amendment No. 18; the provision of information on access, which is addressed in Amendment No. 103; training gallops, which are mentioned in Amendment No. 34; dogs, which are mentioned in Amendment No. 108; and occupiers' liability, although I do not think that we shall reach that tonight. Other such issues will arise later in the Bill, but the issues I have mentioned are covered early in Part I. I hope that that procedure is helpful. I shall repeat it at the commencement of subsequent Committee days.
	Given what I said earlier, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the proposed purpose clause at this stage and will be content to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hylton: Before the noble Lord sits down and before the noble Baroness replies, I notice that the point he made about rights of way is already fully covered in the Long Title of the Bill. Therefore, I think that it would probably be redundant to repeat it in the amendment.

Baroness Byford: I am most grateful to the Minister for his full response to my proposed purpose clause. I am particularly grateful to all those who have spoken from all sides of the Chamber. First, I thank the Minister for indicating that the Government have already seen areas where they may propose their own suggestions or meet other amendments part way, as it were. I am grateful to the Minister for that indication. I also thank the Minister and his team who have met our Front Bench team and, I suspect, many others around the Chamber, on several occasions since the Bill first came into being.
	The Minister made several points I wish to address. He said clearly that the Bill addresses three matters. However, the Bill addresses four matters. The Minister mentioned access, rights of way and the protection of wildlife. However, the Bill also addresses areas of outstanding natural beauty. We received the provisions on AONBs rather late, as the Minister will acknowledge. As we had not received that section of the Bill, the two Committee days were withdrawn at the last minute. That comment is mischievous but true.
	With regard to instant access to land, I live in the country and people are saying, "We can walk over the land. We have instant access". The Government have taken on board the issue. I have sought to make it clear that we do not wish to deter them from putting forward for consideration matters which will be implemented. But there is a difference between the Bill being passed and the period of up to five years before people have access to such land. I am grateful to the Minister for making the position clear. I hope that the message will be passed on loud and clear.
	I accept, as the Minister acknowledged, that there could be a conflict of interest. The noble Lord said that it is not a complex Bill. Having considered other Bills I understand why he used that expression. However, the devil is in the detail. I suspect that although much of the Bill would not be considered complex, it will have to balance the interests of land users, land workers and wildlife groups. Although the Bill may not be considered complex, it is a demanding Bill for consideration in this House. That is one reason why I wished to put forward this purpose clause.
	The Minister referred to funding, an issue raised by several noble Lords. It is and will be a problem. I realise that the Minister cannot tell us about funding for the years ahead. However, when local authorities run short of money, it is the wardens of land open to access who go. Yet they are the very people who can help to protect wildlife and enable people to enjoy that access. It is not a subject we can dismiss easily.
	I shall not reiterate what my noble friend Lord Brittan said so eloquently on human rights. I hope that the Minister will address the issue soon rather than wait until we reach that section of the Bill. We need to know the answer sooner rather than later.
	In referring to the developing of areas, my choice of words did not reflect what I wished to say and could be misinterpreted. Perhaps the word should have been "enhance" or "ensure"; I shall try to think of a better word. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for pointing that out.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for raising so clearly the issue of mapping and the Government's need to give assurances on the timetable.
	I thank my noble friend Lord Peel for his contribution. As he declared, he spoke from his practical experience of looking after areas which will now have a greater number of visitors. There is need for research into the implications for our ground-nesting birds, which we wish to preserve and protect. Mr Michael Meacher referred to that point in another place.
	It would not be right to go through all the other points raised. I am grateful to every Member who has spoken. I hope that this purpose clause will not be dismissed. Although the wording may not be correct, I should like to reflect upon the issue. I do not intend to put the matter to a vote today. Although we have had good assurances from the Minister, I am not convinced that there is not a need for such a clause. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 [Principal definitions for Part I]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 10, at beginning insert--
	("( ) In this Part "access land" means any land which is shown as access land on a map in conclusive form issued by the appropriate countryside body for the purpose of this Part.
	( ) Land may be shown as access land on such a map if--
	(a) it is open country,
	(b) it is common land, or
	(c) is dedicated for the purposes of this Part under section 16,
	but does not (in any of those cases) include excepted land or land which is treated by section 15(1) as being accessible to the public apart from this Act.").

Lord Glentoran: There will be inevitably some repetition in this debate. Despite the detail of many of the amendments, they are meant to be objective and helpful and not destructive or obstructive.
	I spent much of the early part of my life introducing young people to the delights, dangers and excitement of the countryside; my heart is in that. However, I also learned that if people are not properly educated there is risk, hazard and--a matter which we must avoid--misunderstanding leading to conflict.
	This group of amendments refers to mapping, which is the key to this part of the Bill. If the mapping process is understood clearly by all, and is undertaken fully, positively and with great clarity, it will be a tremendous bonus for future generations. Amendment No. 2 refers to mapping. The Bill does not provide for maps showing access land. The mapping exercise merely shows registered common land and open country--"excepted" land, that covered by development--and land subject to other regimes is not marked or excluded.
	The Bill should provide for mapping of access land. That provides certainty to walkers, farmers, landowners and public bodies. The benefits of this approach include the fact that walkers will be able to see from their maps where they can or cannot go. They will not have to apply difficult legal concepts such as "What is the curtilage of a building" while going for a relaxing walk because it will be clear from the map. Farmers and landowners will know which land is and is not subject to access. That reduces the prospect of mistakes and disputes about notices deterring access. In the Bill a genuine dispute about land being excepted will be determined on a criminal prosecution in the magistrates' court. Such mapping reduces the prospect of appeals on the mapping of open country. The present maps do not exclude excepted land. All a farmer concerned about the proposals can do is dispute the open country designation. Many of those concerns would be assuaged if farmers knew which of their land was excepted. Deleting the subsection is consequent on the new access land provision. Amendment No. 3 is consequential upon Amendment No. 2.
	Amendments Nos. 6, 9, 28 and 30 are probing amendments about the application of access to common land. The Bill gives a right of access over registered common land. However, some common land is not registrable and so not registered; or is not common land for the purposes of the Commons Registration Act 1965. These exceptions include common land in the New Forest, Epping Forest and the Forest of Dean and common land subject to highway rights. Ministers said in another place--reported at col. 24 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee of 28th March--that historic laws provided for free access in the New Forest. How are those laws accommodated in the Bill? Do the access provisions apply in the Forest of Dean or Epping Forest? Are there other access rights? Do the access provisions apply to common land that is also a highway? Is the position different if the common land is also open country--if it is a heath, for example? Are Ministers satisfied as to why such land is excluded from access rights?
	Amendment No. 7, tabled by my noble friends Lady Byford and Lord Peel, relates to fast-track access. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Peel to speak to that. By deleting subsection (1)(c), Amendment No. 8 would provide that a right of access to common land should arise only when mapping has taken place. By deleting paragraph (d), Amendment No. 10 would make the same provision for mountains.
	There is a great danger in rushing in partial implementation of the access regime. I was relieved to hear some reassurances from the Minister in his reply to my noble friend Lady Byford on the previous amendment.
	If access is to work, it must adjust to local circumstances. That requires by-laws to be made, access points and signs to be provided and wardens to be appointed, trained and equipped. I hope that Ministers agree that that should be done before access is granted. Paragraphs (c) and (d) contain some of the provisions that rush in the regime before local mechanisms are in place.
	Mr Meacher recognised in the other place that there should not be immediate access to land over 600 metres. On Second Reading, he said in response to James Gray:
	"I did not say that access to mountain land over 600 m would be available immediately. I said that that land is most easily mapped, but the hon. Gentleman is right--one must take account of accessibility".--[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/00; col. 725.]
	He later said in Standing Committee on 28th March:
	"It was a slip of the tongue. I meant to say most easily identified rather than mapped".
	The Bill currently provides access to such land without mapping. Mr Meacher's explanation still begs a question about identification.
	Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are somewhat technical. Amendment No. 11 would define "sea level" in paragraph (d). Sea level varies with tides from place to place. It is worth noting that Ordnance Survey uses mean sea level at Newlyn in Cornwall as the base for mapping. It is easier and clearer if the Bill adopts that standard. Ministers in the other place appear to have accepted that 600 metres would be measured from mean sea level at Newlyn, but that should be made clear in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 21 relates to the definition of a mountain as higher than 600 metres. It is marginally out--I think that we heard that 600 metres is 1,975 feet, whereas I always thought that a mountain was 2,000 feet.
	Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 follow on from Amendments Nos. 9 and 7. Amendment No. 84 would insert a subsection in Clause 2 saying:
	"Subsection (1) does not entitle a person to enter or to be on any access land unless the appropriate countryside body has issued a map showing the land as access land".
	All those amendments would make the situation clearer through the mapping process. I beg to move.

Viscount Bledisloe: I support Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 84, which relate to mapping. I shall not speak to the other, more technical ones. Indeed, I am not sure why they have been included in this group, but be that as it may.
	I entirely agree that there must be definitive maps of all access land before access is allowed. I have two reasons for saying that, one particular and one more general. If there are not definitive maps of, let us say, a mountain of more than 600 metres, people will range. They may come into an area and start up a mountain at 600 metres, but when they come down the other side, unless they have a very accurate altimeter in their hand, how on earth will they know when they have passed from 610 metres to 590 metres? There must be a definitive map before we start the process. The mischief is that if people start exercising such rights before there is a definitive map, they will get used to wandering over the hill and down the other side into the glen at a lower level. By the time the map comes along, they will not need to look at it because they will think that they know where they always go.
	The issue is symptomatic of a lot of the problems in the Bill. There are many pious intentions, but no method of communicating them to the walkers who will be exercising the new rights. The Government have not thought out how a walker will know whether it is one of the 28 days when access is forbidden. He will not know whether there is a local order excluding extra access. Unless every walker carries a Bill, an altimeter, the local paper and a website with him, he will not have the capacity to obey the pious intentions that the Government have expressed.
	Much of the debate on the Bill will relate to such issues. This is one good example of an area in which we could start with clarity and then let people in, rather than letting people in first and trying to secure clarity later. I hope that the Government will appreciate the problems that they are creating and show their good will by accepting the principles of the amendments.

Earl Peel: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I have some doubts about the grouping, but since all these amendments have been grouped, perhaps it would help the House if I were to speak to my Amendment No. 7, which would remove the fast-track approach. It would preclude land above 600 metres and all registered common land being brought forward for access provisions. All such land would be treated in the same way as other land.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was right to talk about pious intentions. The Government hope that the issue will be resolved on a wing and a prayer. It is symptomatic of many provisions in the Bill. The people on the ground will have to pick up the pieces when the Government have gone away and forgotten about the Bill because they have satisfied their conscience and their manifesto. There is a real danger that owners and occupiers of land that would be covered by the fast-track procedure will be short-changed. It is fundamental that, before access provisions are put in place, every owner and occupier should have an opportunity to negotiate with the access authority on whether there will be by-laws or closure orders and what sort of management structure there will be for the land.
	I believe that there is a danger that if the fast-track approach is implemented the opportunities for negotiation will be lost. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said quite rightly, the danger is that people who wish to walk on those areas will assume that they can do so. They will go across land which perhaps under the Bill will be accepted because the footpaths to those areas have not been negotiated.
	Therefore, quite frankly we shall end up with only muddle and conflict. I say to the Government in all sincerity that such a move would put the access provisions of the Bill in a bad light and would lead to the kind of conflict that I believe we all wish to ensure does not occur. I believe that the good will which the Minister attaches to the Bill could be very seriously compromised. Therefore, my amendment removes the opportunities for fast tracking land above 600 metres and registered common land.
	I believe that it would be helpful to receive an assurance from the Minister that the maps will be produced and published before any access is implemented and that owners and occupiers will have a full opportunity to discuss with the access authority the type of management regimes that ultimately will be imposed upon their land. Perhaps the Minister can give an assurance that there will be proper opportunities to discuss access footpaths to areas where no footpaths exist at present. Perhaps I may leave those questions with the Minister; I shall be very interested to hear what he has to say.

Baroness Strange: I should like to support some of the amendments but perhaps not all. However, I have received a great many letters from people who are very worried about access. I shall quote from one of them so that the Minister can hear the sort of things that people are saying. This is from a lady from Yorkshire who says:
	"We worked and saved and did without to buy an area of land. We didn't strip it out to maximise its financial potential, instead we manage it to foster its biodiversity. We are not allowed to live on our land. We take no grants or subsidies except for 1 small grant on a separate piece of SSSI.
	"My husband and I do the work on the land ourselves. It is hard steep chalk and the fencing is only just covered by the return from grazing. Any slight alteration in the economic picture will leave us unable to maintain it.
	"... We struggled to buy legal ownership--the right to say who could or not be on the land. We bought in the open market. It is to be taken from us for nothing. Normally it is only criminals who have their assets seized.
	"... I and thousands of other ordinary country people are not rich landowners as caricatured. We are going to have our lives made a misery. It is such a different matter for private individuals who own and work on their holdings with real personal love and involvement to land owned by an impersonal company or vast estate. Our children, our persons, and our possessions are to be put at risk just so certain others can follow a leisure pursuit. Is this what English Law is meant to do?"

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 7, 8, 10 and 84. First, I declare an interest as Chairman of English Nature.
	I express concern that, if Amendments Nos. 2, 7, 8, 10 or 84 are agreed, the option for the fast-track process will be removed. I believe that it would be unfortunate if government were prevented from even considering the fast-track process as part of the implementation process. It is important that when the Bill is passed we see an expansion of access in practice on the ground fairly quickly and certainly within a reasonable period, otherwise the public will lose heart that a Bill of this sort has been passed at all.
	The mapping process required to map the entire extent of access land and the types of concomitant considerations of restrictions and closures will be quite lengthy, and I believe that the public will lose heart at that point. The mountain areas and registered commons have already been mapped. I believe that adequate procedures can be developed to handle--

The Earl of Onslow: I missed which amendment the noble Baroness is speaking to.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 2, 7, 8, 10 and 84. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, rightly drew our attention to the need for proper consideration of restrictions and closures before access to fast-track land is opened up. I believe that he is absolutely right. However, I believe that those restriction and closure considerations can be progressed quite quickly.
	There is, of course, another alternative to the progressive introduction of access land. It would be possible to carry it out on a regional basis whereby the maps and concomitant consideration of restrictions and closures for particular regions of the country were completed so that entire regions could be opened up. I believe that that is a possibility and that perhaps--

Viscount Bledisloe: Will the noble Baroness give way? Perhaps I may suggest that that is precisely what can happen under Amendment No. 84. An area can be opened as soon as the map for that area shows that it is access land. No one is suggesting that the whole countryside must be mapped before access can be made available. Amendment No. 84 specifically allows that progressive approach.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing that point to my attention. However, if I continue perhaps he will understand that I am proposing two options as being possible. I believe that going ahead with the fast-track process in relation to mountains and registered commons is one way forward. An alternative may be to map on a regional basis and come forward sequentially region by region.
	However, I believe it is important that we learn from the pilot which is currently under way on the mapping process. We should make a decision about how access land is to come forward in reality only once we have learnt the lessons from the pilots. Those results should be available quite quickly. The principle must be that access on the ground is made available to people at a fairly early stage. We should not lock ourselves in by removing the ability to have a fast-track process before we know the exact results of the pilot processes.

Lord Marlesford: Before the noble Baroness sits down, presumably she is not proposing that access be granted in any instance before the map is completed.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: I am suggesting that once land has been subject to the consideration of individual restrictions and closures the fast-track process should indeed be opened up before the full mapping process has been completed.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness another question before she sits down. Can she reply to the fear expressed by my noble friend Lord Peel that people may go to the top of a hill, come down the other side and assume that they can go on? It may be all right to do so on one side of the hill but one may not have a map to show that it is not all right on the other. Has the noble Baroness considered with her agency the answer to that matter?

Baroness Young of Old Scone: Perhaps I may clarify that I am not talking on behalf of my agency and shall not be doing so throughout the passage of the Bill. That would be inappropriate in terms of the procedures of the House.
	However, I am drawing attention to the fact that, if we were to remove the provision for even considering the fast-track process, I believe that we should reduce the flexibility to find the best way forward to introduce faster, on-the-ground access than would be possible without the fast-track process being an option for government. It may be that, having seen the pilot mapping process, government would choose not to take that option. However, I believe that it would be wrong of us to remove the option. I suspect that that would lock us immediately into only one way forward which may be very lengthy.

The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble Baroness clarify something which she just said? She said that she is not speaking on behalf of her agency. If that is the case, is her agency capable of disagreeing with what she said? Does that not in effect put her in an extremely difficult position?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The position is very clear so far as concerns the rules of this House--the Addison rules. My noble friend is not allowed to speak on behalf of her agency. What her agency does is a matter for the agency.

Lord Greaves: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 21 which concern land over 600 metres. It is fairly clear why it refers to land over 600 metres: that is the nearest very round number to 2,000 feet.
	I agreed with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said. She mentioned the question of how the mapping programme is to be undertaken. As we go through our discussions on the Bill, we shall be asking the Government to make it quite clear how they see the mapping timetable taking place. Will there be a national big bang in England and another one in Wales or are we to have regional maps produced at various stages of the mapping process? It has even been suggested to me that maps of different types of access land might be produced separately. That seems to me to be a recipe for chaos. But that is a fundamental question which I shall continue to ask the Government until I receive an answer which satisfies me.
	As regards land over 600 metres, I had the benefit last week of seeing on a computer screen a map produced by the Ordnance Survey of land over 600 metres in England and Wales. That can quite clearly be produced very simply indeed because there is a 600 metre contour already on its maps. So it can produce a map of that land very easily and I understand that it has already done so.
	The truth is that in most of England, there is not much land over 600 metres. I want to know how big an issue this is. For someone like myself who is a mountaineer of sorts, the higher the land, the better. Therefore, land over 600 metres is obviously extremely important. There is obviously a lot of such land in the Lake District and quite a lot in the northern Pennines. There is some in the Pennines generally. But where else is it? I believe that there is one little bit in the south-west on the highest peak in Dartmoor, if Dartmoor has peaks. There is very little indeed elsewhere. We need to know the scale of the problem in relation to such land.
	The maps exist. Therefore, the Government know how many areas of land over 600 metres there are in England and Wales. I am not so sure about Wales because my knowledge of it is not as great as it is in relation to England. Where are those areas of land? How many separate plots are there? How many of them are already effectively open to public access? Clearly, most, if not all, in the Lake District will already be open to access, as will many in the Pennines. At present how many remain not open to access?
	I do not suggest that the Minister should stand up and wave a map at us now. But those maps exist and I ask the Minister to supply such a map so that we can have a look and make up our minds about this matter.
	Finally, how many of those plots of land which are over 600 metres are not accessible at present by rights of way on foot? How many are in the position about which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was speaking; namely, they cannot be accessed by a legal right of way? I do not know how many there are. There may be none at all. If there are none, we are wasting our time discussing the matter. But we need to know the answers to those practical questions.

Earl Peel: I appreciate what the noble Lord says; namely, that pieces of land over 600 metres in England are few and far between. But they do exist. I can think of one where there is no right of way.
	But we must not forget that the fast-track approach applies not only to land over 600 metres but also to registered common land which is a different issue altogether.

Lord Whitty: There are two inter-related aspects here. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, dealt mainly with the definition of "registered common land" and most of the other comments have related to the fast-track procedure as such.
	First, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that we need to convey that there must be clarity before the right is triggered. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we should make sure that the timetable is understood. I cannot be more specific about the timetable than I was previously when I said that the totality of the mapping process may take up to five years. Nevertheless, in the Government's view it is sensible that where areas can be dealt with more quickly, and all the consultation and appeals procedures have been followed, the right should be triggered well before that.
	The areas with which we are dealing in this group of amendments are registered common land and land over 600 metres and they are relatively easily mappable. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right that there is not a great deal of such land in England, although there is a great chunk of it in Wales. Those are easily identifiable by somebody marking a thicker line on the Ordnance Survey maps than currently exists. There is already a map register in relation to registered common land.
	The amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred would remove the word "registered" from the term "registered common land". Therefore, that would remove the reference to the Commons Registration Act 1965. As I understand it, that Act was intended to end the anxiety about the status of common land and sought to finalise that position. I know that there have been subsequent criticisms of the Act but it has done quite a lot to clarify and codify what is common land in both England and Wales, and the corresponding rights, therefore, of commoners.
	We issued a consultation paper earlier this year--Greater Protection and Better Management of Common Land--which set out the proposals for further reform. But in the mean time, the commons registration maps compiled as a result of the 1965 Act form a conclusive register of what is and what is not regarded as common land.
	The amendments here would require the mapping authorities to reconsider each of those areas of common land to ascertain whether it should have common land status for the purposes of this Bill. Indeed, it could theoretically require the Countryside Agency to cast around and identify more common land which might have been omitted from those maps and registers. That is not the purpose of the Bill. Where common land may have been mistakenly registered and contains houses, gardens or similar developments, that land--this addresses a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran--would, in any case, be excluded from access by virtue of the categories of excepted land which are listed in Schedule 1 in relation to buildings, gardens and so on. So they may be within the contour of common land but those areas would be excluded. Therefore, I am not sure that I could go along with the noble Lord's suggestion that maps should show access land which identifies each of those buildings because Schedule 1 already ensures that the right of access will not extend to land excepted under Schedule 1. We should not expect the countryside authorities to map every building within that area because buildings in general are excluded.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also raised specific issues in relation to existing access rights as regards the Forest of Dean, the New Forest and Epping Forest. The current status is that the Forest of Dean and the New Forest are not registered as common land and are excepted from the 1965 Act, but they are likely to qualify under this Act as open country. There is already very substantial de facto access in those areas.
	There are existing legal rights of access in Epping Forest. Therefore, that is excluded from the right of access under Part I by virtue of Clause 15 which effectively reflects the general approach of this Bill that existing legal rights of access are not altered or reduced as a result of the Bill. So someone who is exercising a right of way or a right of access would not have that right modified by the Bill.
	It would be wrong, therefore, to delete the term "registered". We already have a basis for mapping in the maps arising from those registers. On that basis, if we wished, we could speed up the process of identifying the land to which the access provisions apply.
	Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10, 84 and part of Amendment No. 2 would remove the option to fast track those areas of registered common land and also land over 600 metres. We have provided in the Bill for the right of access to apply to land which has been mapped as open country or registered common land. That will provide the necessary level of certainty for the future for both users and landowners. But the mapping process will take some time. The countryside bodies will need to identify whether areas of land fall into the prescribed categories. There will also need to be time for consultation before that right may come into effect.
	That is why we have included a fast-track option for areas which can already be identified from existing sources. By definition, registered common land is shown on the registers. Mountains over 600 metres are already identifiable by contour lines on Ordnance Survey maps. We made amendments in Committee in another place which will enable applications for closure--and the directions which will give effect to them--to be made before the right of access comes into force. That procedure would also apply were we to adopt a fast track procedure in relation to land over 600 metres and common registered land. That means that, if we decide to use that fast-track option, if there are any concerns that land needs to be closed either on a temporary or permanent basis, it will be possible to ensure that such restrictions apply on the land immediately the right comes into effect. There will therefore be time for all the necessary arrangements to be in place on fast-track land just as on any other land.
	Whether we decide to opt for fast-track proceedings will partly depend on the assessment by the Countryside Agency and the Government of how fast we can move to the general mapping of land. Clearly, if the mapping process seems likely to be completed slightly faster than we currently estimate and indicate, the argument for a fast-track approach would be somewhat less. Even with the fast-track approach, the provision cannot be brought in overnight. It will probably take up to two years before it can be brought into effect and the necessary restrictions and closures identified.
	On the other hand, as has been referred to earlier, we also have to bear in mind that people expect progress. If it is relatively easy to map the land from existing sources, they would expect progress on that front. Those who have concerns and interests within those pieces of land will have exactly the same rights as those who have concerns and interests about the rest of access land.
	There is a detailed amendment regarding how sea level is measured. Reference was made to Newlyn. I have referred to the Ordnance Survey provisions. I believe that the two amount to the same thing. We might have another look at that but we feel that the reference to 600 metres is fairly widely understood, and would be the provisions used in the Ordnance Survey.
	With those clarifications, I hope that one would be prepared to keep in the option for fast tracking land where there are already identifiable maps and descriptions of land, and that the rights of the owners of that land and others who have an interest are protected under that procedure as with the rest of the Bill. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment.

Viscount Bledisloe: Did I hear the Minister correctly? Did he state that the Forest of Dean is likely to qualify as open country?

Lord Whitty: Parts of the Forest of Dean may qualify as open country.

Viscount Bledisloe: Does the Minister believe that the Forest of Dean is wholly or predominantly mountain, moor, heath or down? If he does so believe, has he ever been to the Forest of Dean?

Lord Whitty: My grandmother came from the Forest of Dean. I agree that there are parts which would not fall within that category. However, there may be land which does. Obviously, the final outcome will depend on the assessment by the Countryside Agency. I picked up the reference to the Forest of Dean from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It is possible that parts would so qualify, but I agree not all.

Lord Greaves: Can the Minister respond to my request for a map of land over 600 metres, as it exists?

Lord Whitty: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I did say that he was right, broadly speaking. It would probably be sensible for me to write to him and put a copy in the Library, possibly with a highly-coloured map attached.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for his usual clear explanation, much of which I found encouraging. As regards the amendments concerning registered common land and the Forest of Dean, Epping Forest and the New Forest, I have no trouble in withdrawing them.
	However, I am still concerned about fast track. As we have discussed before, there are significant dangers of growing misunderstandings, particularly among the general public and the land-owning community. I shall not press the amendment to a Division today. However, I hope that the Government will think carefully before pursuing the fast-track approach as a quick and easy way to deliver something to the public which we might later regret. I understand the Minister's comments regarding land over 600 metres. However, there are access problems in many places. It would lead to confusion to say that one section is okay because a road goes over it or it is a right of way, and another section is not because it is inaccessible legally and technically.
	I wonder how the pilot mapping process is proceeding? As I said at Second Reading, mapping on the scale of which we are talking requires much time. However, the technology nowadays is so advanced that I cannot believe it is the massive job it was 20 years ago. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("is more than 10 hectares in extent and").

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 4, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 178. Perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 5 to be moved shortly by my noble friend Lord Caithness.
	Included in the many and vast briefings we have received was one from the Countryside Agency. In its paragraph 4 it describes its recommendations and measures providing for the creation of maps as "sensible and adequate". Those are the words I am after as regards my amendments which deal with the size of land.
	Amendment No. 4 inserts in page 1, line 10, the words:
	"is no more than 10 hectares".
	The Government also recognise that there are pieces of open country which may be so small that access should not be required. I refer to Clause 4(5)(a). A similar point must also apply to common land. In both cases, the cost of signing, providing wardens, making by-laws and the trouble caused to farmers and land managers may well outweigh the value of providing access to such small portions. What is the point of the right to roam if there is precious little land at that point over which to roam? That is why we oppose this minimum size of access land.
	Amendment No. 5, shortly to be moved by my noble friend Lord Caithness, declares:
	"and is at least 5 hectares in size".
	My comments also apply to his amendment.
	I turn to Amendment No. 23 which leaves out the words from (a) and inserts "consists". I refer also to Amendment No. 25, in Clause 1, page 2, line 17, which, after "predominantly" sets in the figure which is 75 per cent or more in area.
	These are in fact probing amendments. They attempt to persuade the Government that some parcels of land are too small to be included if we balance the requirements of people walking and those who work the land. First, Amendment No. 18 deletes the reference to land which,
	"appears to the appropriate countryside body to consist".
	Therefore whether land is heath, moor, mountain or down is critical to the rights of the landowners and walkers and needs to be determined objectively. The Bill recognises that because the ground of appeal is that,
	"the land does not consist"--
	Clause 6(3)(a), page 4. That is in objective terms.
	Secondly, both Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 seek to delete the words "wholly or predominantly" so that "open country" means land which is,
	"mountain, moor, heath or down".
	The term "predominantly" is wide, but its scope is unclear. Can the Minister say whether it means 51 per cent, 66 per cent, 75 per cent or more of the land? Amendment No. 20 gives a 75 per cent option. Therefore, what area of land is considered to be too small? Can it extend beyond the edge of the heath and, if so, how far?
	Ministers said that "predominantly" means "prevailing" or "mostly"--Standing Committee, 4th April 2000, col. 115--which does not make the matter much clearer. The purpose is said to be to give some flexibility to the countryside bodies, yet that flexibility would be applied to take rights away from landowners. The Bill should provide tests that can be applied, rather than leave human rights to the whims of government agencies.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 which also come within this group. Amendment No. 24 seeks to omit the words "wholly or predominantly", about which I am seeking a clearer definition from the Minister. The mapping of access land should be focused closely on land which is,
	"mountain, moor, heath or down",
	and not on land that is "similar to", "adjacent to", "partly" or even "predominantly",
	"mountain, moor, heath or down".
	By enabling the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales to map land which they perceive to be predominantly,
	"mountain, moor, heath or down",
	there is a danger of substantial areas which are not,
	"mountain, moor, heath or down",
	being included on the maps. To avoid that possibility the phrase "wholly or predominantly" should be removed from the Bill. Removal of the word "predominantly" would maintain the original government line taken in their access consultation paper in 1998 which referred to access being provided only to specific types of land; not to land and the land around it or bordering it which is not itself open country. The Minister said in relation to my purpose clause that this is not a complex Bill; I feel it is becoming more complex by the minute.
	The term "predominantly" was used to describe "open country" in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. However, the context in which the term was used in that Act is quite different from the way it is used in this Bill. That Act defined the areas of land essentially for the purposes of making access agreements over them, while the current Bill is concerned solely with the imposition of statutory rights on owners. Where agreements are involved, a more relaxed definition is desirable. Where the statutory right is involved, the Government should be far more explicit as to which types of land are to be affected. Removing the word "predominantly" will go some way towards making what is currently an imprecise provision much more precise.
	Given that Clause 4(5) allows the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales to determine the boundary of any area of open country that can be treated as coinciding with a particular physical feature--for example, a wall, fence or road--it is not necessary for the agencies to have the discretion to include land which is predominantly,
	"mountain, moor, heath or down".
	They have the flexibility under Clause 4(5) to include narrow strips of land or field corners which are not strictly,
	"mountain, moor, heath or down",
	so as to delimit the parcels affected clearly in relation to physical features on the ground such as walls or hedges. No further discretion is needed to include on the maps land which is predominantly open country.
	The Minister argued in Committee in another place that, rather than narrowing down what land should be mapped, the agencies responsible for undertaking the mapping should be allowed as much local flexibility as possible. However, the more flexibility that is provided, the greater the likelihood of regional variations in what land is or is not mapped. That may well lead to inconsistencies in the mapping.
	An appeals system will be in place for those who feel that their land has been wrongly mapped. But without greater clarity over what land should be mapped, such appeals may create excessive burdens on the agencies concerned, extending the period before which any map may be published and the right of access put in place. By removing the uncertainty and having a clear-cut definition and a basis from which to map, the number of appeals against land being included on the map would be minimised. An alternative might be to define "predominantly", for example, as meaning "more than 80 per cent of the land covered within the parcel of land being mapped".
	I am sorry that these amendments are somewhat technical; but they are important. I beg to move.

Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: I fully support the amendment proposed by my noble friend. I disagree on only one small point of phraseology; that is, his description of the amendments as "technical". They are technical in a sense, but they also raise points of principle as well as practicality.
	Of course, we are all agreed that there is no point in allowing a right of access to tiny parcels of land. We are also agreed that the provision that land should be mountain, moor or whatever in order for access to be granted should not be applied literally to mean that if a tiny bit is not, the right of access should not be given. Those are practical points. But the point of principle is who decides and how it is to be decided where the boundaries apply.
	Essentially, the scheme set out in the Bill leaves a high degree of discretion to the public agencies concerned. The question this Committee must decide is whether we want those broad definitions to be applied using words like "predominantly" in relation to the size of the land, giving the discretion to the agencies concerned, or whether we want to be more precise.
	I believe that my noble friend's point is absolutely correct. When it is a question of agreement or something of that kind, looser language may be appropriate. But when we are talking about legal rights which, by definition and by concession, take away existing property rights, we must be precise. It is right that those should be determined by Parliament and not by government agencies, however well meaning and even if a right of appeal is provided. For that reason, I believe that the provision to allow the exclusion of small parcels of land should take the form of a definition with a number, whatever it may be, relating to the size and area of land which is excluded, rather than giving the discretion to the agency to take a view.
	Similarly, at the other end of the scale, the decision that land can be included if it is--perhaps I may use yet another adverb--overwhelmingly land which comes within the specified categories should not be determined simply by the use of an adverb, whether "predominantly" or any other, which must then be interpreted by the government agency. It should be set out in a more precise form.
	Therefore, one should say either--and perhaps going to the extreme--that the whole of the land must be of the category concerned, or--if that goes too far and I suspect that it does--that a specified percentage should be applied. That seems to me to be preferable.
	The point of principle is whether decisions on land ownership and legal rights over land be made on a discretionary basis by a public agency or whether they should be determined specifically and precisely in an Act of Parliament. On that point of principle, I am firmly of the view that it should be the latter rather than the former, and that is why I support the amendments.

Earl Peel: Having put my name to Amendment No. 24, I want to concur with everything said by my noble friends and I have no intention of repeating it. The provision in the Bill is far too woolly and vague and will give ridiculous opportunities, no matter how well meaning, to the relevant access authorities.
	I want to refer to a particular issue and I do not know whether my noble friend Lady Byford did so. I should have thought that Clause 4(5)(b) gave enough flexibility to the relevant access authority to deal with the point raised. I am not happy with the wording, but it tightens up and constrains the mapping process to particular physical features, rather than relying on the woolly expressions "wholly" or "predominantly". Perhaps in reply the Minister will tell the Committee whether that provision is sufficient to deal with the problem.

The Earl of Caithness: I rise to support Amendment No. 4 and to speak to my Amendment No. 5 because the arguments are the same. The purport behind the amendments tabled in my name is to make the Bill as workable as possible. Although I am no longer a land agent and will not have to implement such legislation, I still have many friends in my old profession. I am interested in it and they have made many representations to me as regards the practicalities of how the Bill will work when it becomes law. That is what I am trying to improve.
	My noble friend Lady Byford referred to the complexity of the Bill. It is not the most complex piece of legislation ever to come before us but the grouping of the amendments has made it infinitely more so. The previous group was a real dog's dinner and this one is not much better. It brings together two totally different subjects, making it more difficult for the Government to reply sensibly and for us to follow that. I should think that it is impossible for anyone outside to understand what the heck is going on! Having studied the groupings more closely, I shall certainly degroup some of my amendments and I hope that other Members of the Committee will do the same. We should then be able to have a better and more focused discussion.
	My noble friend's amendment is aimed to give greater clarity to the qualification found in Clause 4(5)(a) and underlines the fact that including small areas of land is impractical, extravagant and of limited appeal to walkers. Exclusions of parcels of land this size will not affect visitors' ability to walk through the most rewarding part of the English countryside. It will, however, reduce the administrative burdens on access authorities. An unlimited pot of money will not be available to access authorities so they must ensure that the available money is used in the best possible way. Even a 10 hectare area of land will absorb funds for mapping, provision of facilities, possible staffing needs, maintenance and other expenditures. As we all know, the small jobs always take up the most time and are the most costly. That money could be better used elsewhere.
	Such a small patch of land will probably be of limited attraction to walkers, yet the mapping authorities must ensure that access to it is available across whatever land stands between it and other access land, and that will absorb more funds. Some small areas of land will include outstanding natural features, such as waterfalls, but the public already have access to the great majority of them and the Bill allows for and encourages voluntary access agreements.
	The amendment is also intended to ensure that there is a consistency of approach across access authorities so that certain small parcels of land will be excluded, under whichever authority they fall. That will reduce uncertainty, as was said by my noble friend Lord Brittan, and it will reduce the number of court actions and their associated costs. Furthermore, it will reduce the impact of the Bill on many small landowners and residents of the countryside, the kind of people referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, when debating the previous group of amendments. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to Amendment No. 4.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: As regards minimal land sizes, in particular in southern Britain, the public would like access to many areas of land. I refer to those which have become isolated--for instance, the tops of downs or tors--in areas where the rest of the land is now cultivated. It would therefore be a shame to impose a minimum limit on the size of the land.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, asked whether we want the agencies to have sole discretion over where the boundaries should be. I would say that we do not. That is the purpose of our Amendment No. 156. We believe that however precisely the Bill is drawn as regards the definition of land, it will never be precise enough to address all the margins of land which are difficult to define. A better way of doing so would be to provide a broader definition and then to allow local landowners, users and the access authority to reach a consensus and advise the agency.
	Norfolk County Council wrote to me about the issue pointing out the heathland in that area. Heathland must be more than 10 per cent heather but much of Norfolk's heathland is grassland. Much of Norfolk's common land is now foreshore but some of it is cultivated. As I read the detail, I realised that the permutations were vast and that the wording which might appear in a Bill would never cover all the points made. That is also true around the margins of downland and Exmoor, which I know better. Some issues will always be better resolved locally around the broad definition.

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Baroness spoke reasonably about people sitting around a table and reaching agreement. There is no difficulty about that; difficulty arises when there is disagreement. Unless there are proper and well defined guidelines or statutory provision, the Bill will be a pig's ear. All governments are prone to "lex earum porcum", or whatever it is, and as regards some issues, this Government are in danger of repeating what happened with the Dangerous Dogs Act. We must not allow them to do that.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, believes that it will be difficult for me to give a detailed and careful answer, but I shall attempt to do just that.
	Amendment No. 4 would require any area of access land to be at least 10 hectares in extent and Amendment No. 5 would restrict right of access to open country of at least five hectares in extent. We have given the countryside bodies a practical and flexible discretion not to map areas of land which are so small that they believe that their inclusion will serve no useful purpose. That will enable them to exclude small parcels of land which would involve wholly disproportionate effort and cost to survey and consult upon. They may decide to adopt different thresholds in relation to different types of land. We see no reason to interfere with that discretion.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, spoke about size. We appreciate that in some parts of the country, or on some categories of land, five or 10 hectares may be considered a small area that it is appropriate to omit. Those are precisely the circumstances in which the countryside body may well decide, in line with its discretion in Clause 4(5), that the inclusion of such land serves no useful purpose. At the same time, it is worth bearing in mind that 10 hectares is approximately equal to 15 football pitches. In certain circumstances even five hectares is a sizeable area of land. There will be circumstances where to fail to map an area of five or 10 hectares omits a significant area of open country which would serve a useful function in relation to a new right.
	The Bill requires the countryside bodies to map all parcels of registered common land of whatever size. Amendment No. 4 would apply a minimum area of 10 hectares to common land as it does to other access land. I believe that that is an important response to the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. Three-quarters of all registered commons in England are smaller than 10 hectares in extent and they are often the only uncultivated, unenclosed land within an environment of intensively farmed agricultural land. We therefore wish to resist amendments which would apply an arbitrary size threshold to the mapping of open country or registered common land. I ask the Committee to picture for a moment the totally different circumstances in North Yorkshire and a heavily cultivated area of the country.
	The question of land to "consist" of the open country categories is dealt with in Amendment No. 23. That amendment places a duty upon the countryside bodies to map land which consists of mountain, moor, heath or down, rather than land which "appears" to them to be of one or more of those categories. The countryside bodies will publish the criteria that they will use to help identify each category. They have already published earlier this year a National Countryside Access Forum paper which gives some indication of what those criteria will comprise.
	However, the exercise is not purely an automatic one. It involves more than the simple application of a set of rules. The countryside bodies will need to exercise an element of judgment. The words in the Bill reflect that, and, incidentally, are the same as those used in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Countryside Act 1968. To omit the words "appearing to them" might mislead people into thinking that no element of judgment was involved. As the Committee has accepted, landowners will have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales if they do not believe that their land consists wholly or predominantly of open country, and that provides the necessary safeguard for their interests.
	Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 178 would remove or limit the discretion for the countryside bodies to map land which is predominantly mountain, heath or moor. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the Bill enables countryside bodies to include on maps of open country any small outcrops of land which may not fall squarely in the definition of "mountain, moor, heath or down" but which are part and parcel of a much larger area of land which does fall within those categories.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, raised a detailed question relating to Clause 4(5)(b). He questioned whether it would provide an adequate substitute for "wholly or predominantly". This clause gives countryside bodies discretion only to extend the boundary of open country to physical features. "Wholly or predominantly" is about including small areas of land which are not open country within larger areas of open country. For example, heaths will often contain scattered clumps of trees. To attempt to exclude them all would make little sense either in mapping terms or on the ground, and it would be practically impossible to do so. Equally, it would be impossible to make clear where the right of access was and was not available.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred to the lack of precise definition of the term "predominantly" and its rigid application in every case. We do not intend that it should have that degree of rigidity. It must allow a reasonable level of discretion. It will not allow substantial areas of other categories of land to be mapped as open country, but it will mean that proportionately small areas of land, such as scrub or trees on heath land, or pools on moorland, which are part of a much larger area of land that clearly comes under the definition of open country, need not be excluded from the maps.

Earl Peel: I appreciate that the noble Baroness seeks to be helpful, and I take her at her word. However, the Minister said that large tracts of land would not be incorporated in the term "wholly and predominantly". The noble Baroness cannot give any guarantee that that will not happen. At the end of the day, it will depend on how the countryside bodies decide to implement these provisions.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The kind of assurances that the noble Earl seeks are contained within the proposed provisions. I shall deal later with the point which I believe the noble Earl is leading towards; namely, a precise definition in percentage terms. In drafting this legislation we seek to ensure that we do not include areas that would be impractical and create difficulty and uncertainty for users and landowners alike. I can assure the Committee that the test of "wholly or predominantly" will most definitely not lead to the wholesale inclusion on maps of land which is not open country, but will enable the mapping to be carried out in the most sensible way. I have already referred to the right of appeal to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly should the landowner claim that the countryside body has exercised its discretion unreasonably.
	Amendment No. 25 would define "predominantly" as at least 75 per cent in area. Specifying an arbitrary percentage is not the right approach. Seventy-five per cent of what area? For example, it might be entirely appropriate and sensible to include, say, a clump of trees within a much larger area of heath, but the same clump of trees might well be excluded if it was located at the edge of the same heath or the heath was very small. In another place the honourable Member for Cambridgeshire South East, Mr James Paice, happily accepted that a percentage figure would be too specific. I believe that that also deals with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. The reality is that often there will be a gradual transition from one type of land to another rather than an obvious hard and fast line. However, I reassure the Committee that if any sizeable area of land is to be mapped as open country it will need to be entirely, or almost entirely, mountain, moor, heath or down. I hope that that reassurance goes some way to clarify the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
	It is in everybody's interest that minor adjustments should be possible so that the boundary makes sense on the ground and preferably coincides with recognisable features for ease of identification and navigation. I assure the Committee that we do not seek to allow the inclusion of vast tracts of otherwise ineligible land. It is a common-sense provision to deal with the reality on the ground, which may vary from place to place.
	Before issuing provisional maps, the countryside bodies will consult very widely on where the boundaries of access land should be and will consider the advice of local interests, including local access forums. Therefore, I can reassure the Committee that in exercising this discretion the countryside bodies will be at pains to be fair and objective in their judgments, and the opportunity for landowners to appeal exists. I apologise to the Committee for replying to this group of amendments in detail. I was concerned about the fear of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that because of the large group he would not get detailed replies. I hope noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.

The Earl of Caithness: Will the noble Baroness confirm that the argument which she used with regard to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Byford regarding common land does not apply to my Amendment No. 4? She specifically said to my noble friend Lord Brittan that three-quarters of registered common land would be included under the 10 hectares point. That would appear in line 10 of the Bill as now printed. My amendment is in line 12. Therefore, the argument she used would not apply to my amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is obviously the case that where a large group of amendments are together there may be matters relevant to only one particular amendment. I apologise to the noble Earl if that has happened here.

The Earl of Caithness: What I am seeking from the noble Baroness is clarification that the argument she used in relation to a comment made by my noble friend Lord Brittan does not apply to my amendment, Amendment No. 5.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that not to be the case.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response. Indeed I meant her no discourtesy. The grouping has been somewhat confusing. I accept the point she made in her response to my noble friend the Earl of Caithness. In response to one of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Brittan, she said that she felt it was right that flexibility should be in the hands of the agency and not defined by Parliament. That concerns me greatly because there will be great differences around the country. Perhaps that is something which the Government are seeking and think will be a good idea. But some of us have reservations about the degree of flexibility involved. I had in mind that I might divide the Committee on that matter. At this stage I shall not. That is why we appeared to be slightly discourteous to the Minister. I was trying to clarify which parts were relevant. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, something has arisen in this short debate which is extremely valid and interesting. My noble friend partly touched on it. There are different circumstances in different parts of the country. That does not take away from the fact that the land ought to be able to be defined more clearly. It must be possible to define rules for land which was enclosed early on in small, tight areas as against larger areas of land which were enclosed later, with bigger fields and so on. It must be within the wit of man. Please, please, oh Government, do not leave wishy-washiness about, because it will cause trouble as it always and invariably has.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The idea is not to have flexibility in terms of the principles underpinning the legislation, but to recognise that it is at local levels that local circumstances need to be taken into account and that circumstances will vary enormously in different parts of the country. For that reason we believe, having convinced the honourable Member for Cambridgeshire South East, that to apply rigid and arbitrary percentage point cut-offs would not be in anybody's interests.

Baroness Byford: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may follow on the comment made by my noble friend Earl Onslow and pick up her point about flexibility. My noble friend indicated that not only would we rather have the matter more closely defined on the Bill but also, if legal challenges do come as a result of interested parties not agreeing, the fact that there is so much flexibility without set guidelines will make it difficult for the courts to decide who is right and who is wrong. I hope I have that right. Perhaps my noble friend would like to add to that? Allowing such flexibility will actually bring problems when the Bill is enacted.

The Earl of Onslow: That is exactly the point I am trying to make. Of course there are variations in the countryside. Everybody accepts that. That is the glory of the English countryside. What I suggest is that the rules should be sufficiently tightly drafted so that those variations can be taken into account and there is not room for wishy-washy, half thought-out appeals and so on. That is the point I make. Of course there are differences between Surrey and Yorkshire. We know that. We should be able to draft sets of rules--by regulation if you like--which will take those matters into account.

Baroness Byford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]

Earl Peel: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 1, line 14, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).

Earl Peel: I beg to move the amendment, to which I have spoken already. I shall not rehearse the arguments again. Perhaps I may respond to the points the Minister made, which I thought were helpful. I am not concerned about the timing. What I am concerned about is that those people with land areas greater than 600 metres and with registered common land should not be disadvantaged. I think I am right in saying that the Minister did give a firm assurance that anybody owning land of that type would be afforded exactly the same levels of negotiation with the access authority, that the maps would be published before access was implemented and that the opportunities for discussing by-laws, disclosure orders and general management practices would be dealt with before access was implemented. I seek confirmation that that was the assurance the Minister gave to the Committee.
	Perhaps I may raise two other points which I think are relevant to this amendment. First, on the question of access points; presumably there will be opportunity for access points to be on the land, even though the fast-track system is implemented. I think that is an essential part of the whole information service to the general public. Secondly--a point I was not quite certain about but I am sure must be right--if any of this land is not serviced at the moment by footpaths, that those footpaths will be fully negotiated with the landowners and farmers concerned. Assuming that I get those assurances from the Minister, I shall withdraw the amendment. I should like to hear what he has to say.

Baroness Turner of Camden: I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 7 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 8 to 13 inclusive.

Lord Whitty: On the noble Earl's first point, in essence I can offer reassurance. The process of mapping will mean that the position is somewhat different where there is a clear contour definition of the area. I said that the ability to put in for restrictions, closures, exceptions and so on and the whole structure of appeal would be the same as for the end of the mapping process in other areas and that that process would be completed before the right was triggered.
	On the question of access points and access where there is not a right of way to the land at the moment, we are about to come on to amendments which deal with precisely those points.

Lord Jopling: Before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he would clarify a matter which arises under paragraph (c) and is also referred to at the end of the clause. The clause states:
	"'registered common land' means land which is registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965".
	I vividly recall the passing of that Act all those years ago because the Committee in another place which considered the Bill was the first one on which I served. I remember it extremely well. To what extent are there still pieces of land which were originally registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965 within the first time period and which then had to be argued about in the years following? Are there still matters in dispute which have not yet been settled with regard to registering common land under the 1965 Act? That is a rather important point in considering the Bill because when we talk about registered common land we really ought to know whether everything has been tidied up in commons' registration. Indeed, the original intention was, first, to register common land--where it was, who owned it, who had what rights on it--and then to move on as a second stage to having management agreements.
	I have spoken for long enough. I see that the Minister has received a note. I hope that he will be able to tell us the position with regard to land which was registered but the legal position of which has not been clarified.

Lord Whitty: I touched on that point at an earlier stage. I am not sure whether the noble Lord was present at that point. The Commons Registration Act 1965 led to the registration of common land. The criticisms which have come relate to areas which have been registered where people are still arguing as to whether it should be registered. As far as concerns this Bill, if they have already been registered, they are covered by the Bill's provisions even though there may be some argument. There is no legal right of further argument in that respect. With regard to areas where there are still legal disputes, those legal disputes relate not so much to the designation of the land as to the common rights over the land. Particular disputes are still outstanding in that respect in relation to areas in south Wales. There are then those areas which should have been registered. They would not be covered by the Bill. In other words, we are having to take the register, warts and all. There are not that many outstanding legal disputes, certainly not on the designation of such land.
	The Government have recently issued a consultation document on the future management of common land and greater protection for common land. There are therefore proposals for reform in the pipeline. However, the Bill does not cover that. For the purposes of the Bill, it is the land that is already registered.

Earl Peel: I was trying to get an answer on the question of footpaths and access points. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that.

Lord Whitty: My point on that is that we are about to come on to a group of amendments which deals with those matters.

Earl Peel: My decision on how I play this amendment will depend on the answer I receive from the Minister.

Lord Whitty: If we unravel the grouping, we will not get very far tonight. The noble Earl is concerned about islands of land.

Earl Peel: I am talking specifically about fast-track land--registered common land and land above 600 metres--and whether it will be dealt with in the same way and be afforded the same rights as land that will be dealt with through the normal procedures.

Lord Whitty: The land will be dealt with in the same way. As I have just explained, in terms of fast-tracked, over 600 metres land, the right of people to suggest restrictions, closures, modifications and so on will be exactly the same. Whether the outcome of those negotiations or agreements would cover every aspect of access to that land would depend on how those negotiations went. I could not give an absolute assurance that the question of access to islands of mountain land would necessarily be resolved. But if they were addressed by people with an interest in that land, we have a process which is capable of resolving them.

Earl Peel: I am grateful to the Minister. We are going around in circles on this point. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 8 to 12 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 1, line 17, after ("level") insert ("and which is accessible to the public by any highway").

Lord Glentoran: I am not quite sure why Amendment No. 13 is in this grouping as it deals with matters which in part have already been addressed. It would be helpful if the Minister could see his way to accepting the amendment. At the moment the Bill provides that any land more than 600 metres above sea level will automatically become access land subject to the right of access. There is no prior requirement, as there is for other access land, for such land to be mapped by the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales before that right comes into effect. That raises the prospect that once the Bill becomes law people will seek to gain access to mountain tops across intervening land over which no right of access exists.
	The amendment refers to land over 600 metres above sea level,
	"which is accessible to the public by any highway".
	I interpret "highway" as being any route that is open and accessible legally to the public. If that were acceptable, it would certainly make us feel a good deal more comfortable about the areas of mountains over 600 metres and would avoid the business of having to go through inaccessible land and the pressures of the public wanting to have access to mountain tops to which there is no right of access. So if we put on to mountain land--that is, land over 600 metres--the proviso,
	"which is accessible to the public by any highway",
	that would, I believe, be helpful.
	Amendment No. 16 concerns the definition of "down":
	""down" means only that downland which occurs on a chalk substrate and which is found south of the line of latitude 53 degrees north".
	I shall explain the amendment. In the minds of most people, the term "down" conjures up a vision of the open chalk grasslands of the South Downs, the Marlborough Downs or the North Downs of Kent. That is the kind of land most people would expect to find mapped as "downland" for the purposes of rights of access under the Bill. However, in geological terms, it can be argued that grasslands on limestone substrates should also be considered as downland. This would bring within the scope of the Bill the grasslands of the Cotswolds or the Yorkshire Dales, which are of a quite different character. Greater clarity is needed about precisely what types of land should be mapped as "down" for the purposes of the Bill.
	The amendment suggests one approach. It would focus the mapping on areas of chalk grassland south of the line of latitude 53 degrees north--roughly from Wrexham through Stoke-on-Trent and then to Boston in the east. Areas of grassland or limestone substrates north of that line would be excluded unless they also qualified as "moor" or "heath".
	Whichever approach is adopted, it is important that all interests are aware of the criteria. That brings us back to the argument about identifying areas of downland. Can the Minister indicate what ecological, landscape or other criteria the Government plan to use for identifying areas of downland? For the purposes of the Bill, what is the definition of down? The definition we recommend is the geological definition which, I understand, is perfectly reputable and correct.
	As regards Amendment No. 17, which states that,
	""land" does not include land predominantly covered by water";
	the access provisions are concerned with rights of access on foot. Schedule 2 prevents the use of vessels or sailboards on non-tidal water and also prevents bathing. The issues surrounding rights of navigation should be considered separately. This amendment seeks to exclude from the access regime land covered by water. The inclusion of the word "predominantly" prevents any suggestion that mountain streams which can be crossed easily should be excluded from access land. The amendment seeks only to exclude inland lakes of one kind or another.
	Amendment No. 27 seeks further to probe the Government's definition of downland. Amendment No. 33 will be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Caithness. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: It may be convenient to the Committee if I did not speak to Amendment No. 33 at this point, but rather degrouped it. It concerns a totally different subject from that addressed by Amendment No. 13.

Lord Jopling: I should like to speak briefly in support of Amendment No.16 which has been moved by my noble friend. I have lived all my life both in and within sight of the Yorkshire Dales and in another place I represented a part of the Dales. I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention to include, even if only by accident, parts of the Yorkshire Dales under the definition of downland. The Dales are totally different both geologically and ecologically.
	It would be a mistake if, even by accident, a part of the Yorkshire Dales was to be included in the definition. It does not make sense. When we consider downland, I believe that we are all referring to land with a chalk substrate. I hope that the Government will agree with that point.
	If the Minister feels unable to accept Amendment No.16 as presently drafted, I hope that he will be able to return with a suitable amendment on Report.

Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: I should like to support fully what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Jopling, having had a similar but rather shorter experience of living in and representing a part of the Yorkshire Dales. It is clear that the area is completely different from the normal concept of downland. For it to be caught, as it were, in a "sidewind" of the definition for the purposes of the provision, would be quite wrong. I hope that the Government will take that point on board.
	Perhaps I may also comment on the provision set out in Amendment No. 13, which adds,
	"and which is accessible to the public by any highway".
	I am sure that my noble friend would agree that the relevant point here is not that the access point should be a highway, but that it should be a legally accessible public right of way of one kind or another. This problem might be described as one of sequencing. If a mountain area is dealt with first, a situation will soon arise where people do not have a right of access across the open country leading to that mountain area, but do have a right of access to the mountainside.
	After the mapping procedure has been completed and rights across open countryside have been granted, the provision might then be reasonable. However, I think it would be wrong to make an absolute provision granting access to mountain areas in advance of that process. That will cause confusion and give rise to the possibility of illegal attempts being made to pass through the access land. At least until the mapping process has been completed, it would make much more sense to provide that a right of access to a defined mountain area should be given only where a public right of way is already in place.
	It may be that the wording of the amendment needs to be looked at again, but in its spirit and principle it is a practical provision and one that I hope the Government will take on board.

Baroness Lockwood: I am a little confused by the words of those noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment. Several speakers have referred to the Yorkshire Dales. The Dales are limestone dales, but one part of East Yorkshire--the Yorkshire Wolds--is chalk based. The wolds would therefore be excluded from the amendment, were it to be accepted. No doubt confusion could arise when trying to define the Yorkshire Wolds and the Yorkshire Dales.

Lord Greaves: As regards Amendment No. 16, I wish to question whether we should attempt to define areas by their underlying geology. I believe that, as a basic principle, we should not define areas in those terms. What we are properly discussing here are different types of landscape. We should consider the problems and ask, "Is the landscape in a particular area which ought to qualify under the broad definition of 'open country'?" The categories of mountain, moor, down and heath are the best means of defining open country, which would otherwise be difficult to define. Any attempt to arrive at a geological definition would be wrong.
	When referring to the areas of hill land known as the "downs", it is right to talk about the downlands of southern England, which happen to be on a chalk substrate. However, then to impose a cut-off at the 53rd parallel is not logical because that chalk substrate extends further north, as has just been pointed out by the noble Baroness.
	I am not sure that there is a great deal of open country in the Yorkshire Wolds, but there may some--in particular around Flamborough Head. It is therefore illogical to define downland as being land on a chalk substrate, but then to cut off some of that chalk downland because it happens to extend too far north.
	A more basic and fundamental issue has been raised here, one that has been touched on by those noble Lords who take a different view from my own. There are areas of limestone grassland which are not known as "downs" in the local parlance, but which nevertheless should qualify as open country and thus as access land under the terms of the Bill. If the word "downs" is being defined in a wider sense to include those, I am happy with that. I do not agree with Members of the Committee, such as the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, who do not want to include them.
	There are parts of the Cotswolds--not many--where there is still open limestone grassland. That should be included as access land if similar areas in the North Downs and the South Downs, for example, are included. There are parts of north-east Yorkshire, on the Jurassic limestone on the southern fringe of the north York moors, which should probably be included; they do not qualify as "moor" in the way that most of those moorlands do. There are certainly very large areas of the Pennines and other areas on the carboniferous limestone which are open limestone grasslands and should be included as access land under the Bill.
	The question I ask the Government is the other side of the coin to the question being asked by some of the Conservative Members of the Committee: that is, are those areas of limestone grassland, which are clearly open country, which are ecologically very similar to the chalk--but that is a different issue--many of which are open to access at the moment, included in this legislation? For example, there are areas of the Yorkshire Dales and areas of Derbyshire (the Peak District) with open limestone grassland; there are hills in north Lancashire and hills such as Warton Hill and Farleton Hill which are very important from an ecological point of view, particularly in regard to plant life, which have some access at the moment. That kind of land is already being managed by the owners and the conservation bodies to combine access and ecological conservation concerns in a very effective way. Will those be included in the Bill? They ought to be.
	I agree that there is confusion over the word "downland". It should be clarified but, in my view, it needs to be clarified in the opposite way to the way in which noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, want it clarified.

Viscount Bledisloe: I had not intended to speak but a point occurs to me in the light of what the noble Lord has just said. The Bill defines "open country" as land which appears to the appropriate countryside body to consist wholly or predominantly of various things, including down. If the noble Lord says that the Cotswolds are down, the Cotswolds are down whether they are fenced or unfenced. There is nothing here which says that "open land" is "land which is open and which ... ". Therefore, if that land is down geologically--or whatever the other definition of "down" may be--it would suddenly become open country even though in reality it is closed country. That is a very worrying concept. I was not moved by the amendment until now. If it is going to be suggested that there is a wider geological or technical meaning to "down", that needs tying down, otherwise it may lead to land being "open" which in no sense of the word is open country at all.

Lord Greaves: The point I was making is that it should be based on landscape, not the underlying geology. Quite clearly most of the limestone grassland in areas such as the Cotswolds and Pennines is enclosed in fields, often with drystone walls; it is not open country and should not be included in access. However, there is some country which is open country, which is not enclosed, and should be included.

Viscount Bledisloe: The point I was making is that anything which is "down" is, under this definition, open country whether or not it is open in reality. If the noble Lord thinks that "open" Cotswolds land should be included, then a clear definition of "down" is needed, such as, "downland means open land which has the following features".

Lord Whitty: This is a slightly disparate group of amendments and we are making quite a meal of it. Perhaps I may take the amendments in order. Amendment No. 13, which is the first one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, relates back to my recent exchange with the noble Earl, Lord Peel. This is a question of fast-track land where there is no highway approaching it--and "highway" is used in the broadest terms and could include the humblest footpath.
	As I think the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, was hinting, it may well be that there are forms of access other than a formal right of way or a formal footpath or highway. Land tangential to it may well already be access land, either by law, by de facto access, there may be a permissive path at the discretion of the owner or there may already be wide access. Much of the Lake District would fall into that latter category. It is not only a question of a path or a road but of whether there is access around the area of what would otherwise be automatically designated as falling under the fast-track procedure. Defining access in terms of "highway" is wrong.
	In addition there is the process to which I referred in my exchange with the noble Earl, Lord Peel. The process of restrictions and modifications may well include issues of access. Although I cannot give a guarantee that the outcome will always be that no land without a highway or other form of access to it would be so designated, that is the process for resolving that and other issues. I do not think that we need this amendment.
	With the benefit of the geographical knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, imparted to us earlier, one realises that the area of such land in England is relatively small. But there may be temporary and beguiling islands of access land. They will be relatively few and many will be contiguous to areas where there is already some form of access; others could be dealt with through negotiations on restrictions.

Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: Before the Minister passes on to another point, I am more confused than enlightened by what he has said. It is all very well to talk about the process but, as far as I can see--leaving aside the point that there may be de facto access and legal access by means other than a highway--I cannot see anything in the Bill as currently drafted to ensure that until there is legal access (whether as currently or under the other provisions of the Bill) under the fast-track procedure, there is not a right of access granted to mountainside to which there is no legal access. I think it is reasonable to ask the Government to look at that point and to consider whether, in what may be an interim period, it should be quite clear that no one, by whatever process, can provide access to a mountain top to which there is no legal access. It is as simple as that.

Lord Whitty: I said that I cannot guarantee it, but the process is there to deal with these very few particular cases. Our assessment is that with the majority of such islands there would be at some point legal access of some kind. It may not be a footpath or a road but we have the process for dealing with legal access in those remaining areas. I agree that I am not guaranteeing that to the noble Lord, but there is a process for dealing with this point.
	Amendment No. 16 would have two distinct impacts. This is partly a definitional issue. Broadly speaking, I am on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and not on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, and others who are saying that we should tighten the definition. I am in favour of some degree of flexibility for the countryside agencies. What we are trying to describe here is "open country". The terms "down", "moor", "heath" and so on are a means towards getting that definition. Turning to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, if it is cultivated land, it is excluded, whatever its geological and landscape position.
	Amendment No. 16 would rule out any downland which the countryside bodies found to occur north of the 53rd degree of latitude--I do not have the visual aid of the map available, but that is roughly between Boston, Stoke on Trent, and Pwllheli. That is not a very rational approach. If I may divert into geology for a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves is right: in our consultation process we perhaps went slightly too far in our use of the geological definition. We referred to calcareous strata, which, in my understanding of chemistry and geology, means limestone as well as chalk. That definition would exclude, for example, any downland that occurs in Wales, any occurring in the Yorkshire Dales and indeed the Yorkshire Wolds. There are dialect issues here. It would also exclude the Cotswolds south of that line because the area is limestone and not chalk. That seems far too restrictive a definition. We need to allow some flexibility to the countryside agencies, but in response to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, it is clear that such land--access open country within the Yorkshire Dales, for example, or the Cotswolds--should indeed be covered in the definition of "open country".
	Amendment No. 17 raises the question of areas that are predominantly covered by water. We do not see the amendment as particularly helpful. Paragraphs 1(b) and 1(h) already exclude the use of such water for bathing or boats from the statutory right of access. So if there is a lake in the middle of access land, there is no question of the public having any right to use the lake for any purpose. If the amendment were to be adopted, there would not be much certainty as to exactly what was excluded, and some landowners might be tempted to argue that any watercourse that fell within the scope of access land should be used to establish exclusions and, therefore, cause walkers to be confined by a stream or river on access land. That is not the intention. There are no rights over that water, but the exclusion of that area should not be used as a restriction on access land.
	Amendment No. 26 is intended to ensure that only land that consists of one of the categories of moor, heath or down is mapped. But there will be areas of land that fall wholly or predominantly into more than one of those categories and in some areas it may not be easy to identify the exact boundary between moor and heath. In one sense, if it falls within both, it may not matter. I can see that Members of the Committee would like to have greater precision, but the Countryside Agency would need to define the land as land that fell in one or other of those categories. If the boundary between the two categories was a matter for dispute, that is not relevant to the conclusion that it should be mapped as open country.
	As I read Amendment No. 27, it seeks to exclude downland entirely from this definition. In the south of England what is clearly understood as "downland" must be among the most prized and beautiful parts of the country which people would expect to be subject to this right of access. It forms part of one of the most loved areas for recreation in the south of England. It is one of the few categories that could be applied to land in the south of England which would be mapped as open country. Therefore, the exclusion of downland would not only greatly restrict the acreage; it would also particularly disadvantage the populations of the south and south-east of England. We do not, therefore, believe that we should exclude downland.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, indicated that he wished to refer to his amendments separately. I hope that none of these amendments will be pursued and I hope that that explanation will, at least for now, satisfy noble Lords.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for his explanations. We have covered Amendment No. 13 quite well. However, I still believe that if the amendment were to be worded in the manner suggested--namely, that such land would be legally accessible to the public--that would be seriously helpful to the Bill. We shall return to the amendment in this or a similar form.
	In relation to Amendment No. 16, I am still not convinced that there is not room for a more specific definition of "down". We have heard several explanations of "downland", north and south, but the definition remains subjective. It might be pleasurable, but it might also be difficult and worrying for the agency concerned and cause strife later. I believe that the tighter the Government's definitions are at this stage, even though that may be difficult, the better the Bill will be, the more easily it will be implemented, and the less room there will be for conflict, which is what my objective would be from this side of the Committee, just as I am sure it is the view of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Cricket

Baroness Massey of Darwen: rose to ask her Majesty's Government, in the light of the English Cricket Board's report for 1999-2000, what is their policy towards encouraging young people to take up cricket.
	My Lords, I am delighted to be opening the season with a short debate about cricket. It is encouraging that so many of your Lordships--both those who are here today and those who cannot attend--have expressed interest in this topic. I look forward to your Lordships' contributions. I know that they will be knowledgeable and interesting if, unfortunately, brief. I am sorry that the person who inspired this debate in the first place, the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge, cannot be present due to ill health. I know that he was anxious to speak, and I am sure that noble Lords will wish him a speedy recovery. I understand that he is making excellent progress.
	I am indebted to staff from the MCC, the England and Wales Cricket Board and Channel 4 for discussing this topic with me and for sending me information in a most generous way.
	I want to do two things today: one is to place this debate in the context of what is happening in cricket for young people; the other is to raise issues for discussion which I hope will remain relevant after today.
	It may be worth reflecting for a moment on why cricket should be encouraged among young people and what it offers. For me, it is only partly about cricket being a competitive game. I think it encourages other values, even among those who cannot play cricket. Some young people are not good at sport, not good at hand/eye co-ordination. That does not exclude them from physical exercise, nor does it exclude them from appreciating the skills and values of sport, in this case cricket.
	It was thrilling to see, during a most exciting Test series this summer, crowds of young people enjoying the game. Some qualities apparent during that series are, I think, inspirational for young people. I am thinking, for example, about the tenacity and determination of Michael Atherton, the exuberance of Darren Gough, the dignity and perseverance of the two great West Indian fast bowlers, Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh, and Nasser Hussain's expression of disappointment in his own performances, but his ability to stay above that and say that it was English cricket which was important and not himself. These qualities are about skills and values for life, about character, not just about sport. They should be part of personal social and health education in every school, not just part of physical education.
	It was also encouraging that TV coverage from Channel 4 was both educative and informative. It pulled in people who have not previously been greatly interested in cricket--proof that thorough preparation, skilled presentation and enthusiasm are effective and powerful, which is another lesson for young people.
	The very comprehensive report of the England and Wales Cricket Board highlights increases in the numbers of children playing cricket, developments at country and national level, such as inter-cricket and more tournaments, three new national coaches and four regional women's club cricket development officers, six university centres of excellence, new coaching schemes, cricket for those with disabilities and the Activate project in inner cities. It is very encouraging to note that girls are taking up cricket in increasing numbers and that there is an excellent national side.
	Channel 4 Roadshows located at Test venues and county grounds have involved great stars such as Viv Richards, Alan Donald and Brian Lara, to name but a few. All of that provides encouragement and inspiration for youngsters.
	Cricket faces competition among the choices of activity for young people today. Football seems to be a permanent force, not just during the winter. By the way, I should point out that this is not an attack on football. Television and computers have immediate attraction. Schools have problems in timetabling cricket in the summer, which is also the season for examinations. But there are many school initiatives now for encouraging early enthusiasm for cricket through quick versions of the game on a variety of surfaces both indoor and out--for example, with new mobile plastic cricket pitches such as the "Flicx" pitch--and the early development among young people in primary schools of skills such as catching and throwing.
	An educational resource pack, "Howzat", is to be launched by the ECB and Channel 4 in November. That will be sent to all primary and secondary schools in the country to encourage cricket across the curriculum--a teaching aid.
	Enthusiasm is, of course, where it all begins. Cricket has relied on, and will continue to rely, to some extent on parental enthusiasm in taking youngsters to watch and play cricket. That is how my enthusiasm grew: my father took me to watch matches. It will rely on keeping cricket talked about and analysed and upon enthusiasm being passed on nationally and locally. This is partly the responsibility of government in a visible and determined sports policy, including adequate funding. As many of our Olympic athletes have said recently, investment in sport brings results. And we have proof of that.
	I am left with questions about the future of cricket and how young people can be encouraged to participate. Will investment in sport continue? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can expand on yesterday's announcement of £1 billion for school and community sport. It can be confusing to understand which body deals with what in sport and how funding is delivered--and to what effect.
	Is the structure of cricket right? How does the talented boy or girl get spotted? Are we tapping into the abilities of all children, including those from families originating in the cricketing nations of the West Indies, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan? Schools and parents can encourage cricket. Are schools, apart from public schools, equipped to do so? Is there specialist interest? Can they use spaces, such as halls and playgrounds, to generate interest in cricket? Do they take children to watch cricket? Are parents involved?
	Is the link between local clubs and schools sufficiently organised? Some clubs and counties have excellent junior programmes. How can this be encouraged and augmented? How does the county game relate to towns?--for example, London has two county grounds. Oxford and Cambridge are the only two universities that are in county leagues. Football gains its supporters at a much more local level in towns or even in districts of towns. I believe that Australian cricket is organised on similar lines. It can be difficult to watch or play cricket in this country without travel and expense. Are there alternatives? These questions suggest that talent and enthusiasm can fall through the net and never be harnessed at a national or local level.
	The report of the England and Wales Cricket Board is welcome and encouraging. I said earlier that enthusiasm at many levels is contagious and generates activity. Cricket boards are part of that dynamic at national, county and club level. So is government. I said earlier that cricket has much to offer young people in the way of building character, as well as physical skills. I hope that it becomes part of the curriculum at school for all pupils.
	I have posed a lot of questions and realise that they cannot all be addressed tonight. But I hope that we shall keep the profile of cricket high. I also hope that my noble friend the Minister will reassure us that government support for this important national game is solid, that cricket will remain firmly on the sporting agenda, and, indeed, that sport for young people will be encouraged as an investment for the future to enhance and invigorate our reputation as a nation where sport matters.

Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for bringing forward the debate. This is a very important issue. Speaking in my capacity as Chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, the ECB, I can assure noble Lords that encouraging young people to play cricket and helping to develop them is an area of absolute priority. Whether these youngsters live in the inner cities or in the countryside, we want them to play the game. We are devoting significant resources to try to ensure that this happens.
	I should also at the outset like very much to welcome the Prime Minister's announcement at the Labour Party Conference that £750 million from the New Opportunities Fund is to be earmarked specifically for improving school sports facilities. This is desperately needed money which will give more and more youngsters the chance to play cricket and other sports.
	There are currently 2.4 million boys and girls playing cricket in our schools and clubs--a 10 per cent increase on the previous year. I am proud to tell noble Lords that cricket is reinvesting 11 per cent of its income from broadcasting rights in developing the grassroots of the game.
	Cricket has established a charitable trust, the Cricket Foundation, which is dedicated to increasing and widening participation levels and improving the quality of delivery of cricket development programmes at grassroots level. This foundation has disbursed over £10 million in the past four years to our 38 counties.
	Whether it be Hackney or Harrogate, we want to encourage young people to play cricket and we will do all that we can to support and encourage them. We now have 75 cricket development officers to promote cricket throughout the countryside with young people. Funding from Sport England has enabled us to appoint four Women's Club Cricket Development Officers. It is fair to say that it is already beginning to work. Women's cricket is now one of the fastest growing sectors of the game, with nearly 200 women's clubs now established nationwide.
	The first county championship for the disabled was completed last year, with the final being staged at Trent Bridge. The ECB has a dedicated development officer for cricketers with disabilities. Last year we spent £270,000 on a series of pilot projects to promote cricket directly to youngsters in seven inner-city areas. An independent MORI survey showed that cricket was the only sport in the past five years in which there has been an increase in the number of children participating on a frequent basis.
	Finally, I should like to conclude this very short speech by saying that the ECB has just completed a review of its international admissions pricing policy. I can announce today for the first time that next year children under the age of 16 will be allowed free into the last day's play of all the Test matches and that for other days they will be admitted at a discount of 50 per cent. On this note I shall end, but I hope that I have been able to assure noble Lords that cricket at grassroots level is flourishing. However, we still need more money to achieve our ambitions for this great game.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, we are certainly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for initiating this debate today. It is a most appropriate time to do so when we have not yet forgotten the England victory over the West Indies after 30 years of trying. Youth has been given a fillip and it is important that we do not lose momentum.
	In the old days one of the great sources of imbuing love of cricket into youth were teachers. However, we all know how extremely busy teachers are. They do not have the time--although they may well have the inclination--to undertake this extracurricular activity as they used to do. We now have to substitute teachers for money, as it were. Unfortunately these matters cost money, as we all know too well. My own experience comes from the Surrey County Cricket Club where I was president and on the committee. We have done what we can to bring on the game. We started a cricket school which is aimed at not so affluent people in the Brixton and Kennington area. The school is not aimed only at the young. It has been successful and is now "washing its own face", although the cost of setting it up ran into the millions rather than the hundreds of thousands of pounds.
	Since then, in conjunction with the George Abbott School in Guildford, we have started a cricket centre there. The school raised some £1 million through appeals. Surrey County Cricket Club Youth Trust put in about £120,000. We are still paying £10,000 a year to keep it going. It is not an easy task but the measure is bringing youth into cricket. We should like to provide that help in other centres but, as I say, that costs money. We need to keep the momentum going and we need a sympathetic government who realise that cricket is not a wealthy sport in money terms. Hundreds or millions of pounds are not spent on players. As I say, we need a sympathetic government. My noble friend Lord Phillips has given an example of how such initiatives can be undertaken in amateur clubs. I hope that this short debate will encourage the Front Bench opposite and the Government to be sympathetic to what we are trying to do.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for having again introduced this important debate in your Lordships' House. I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth, both on the outstanding success of the English team against the "Windies" and also, through his chairmanship of the ECB, on raising the standards of cricket, both at schools and at club level.
	The ECB's report certainly makes encouraging reading. While a lot has been achieved to ensure that every young person has ample opportunity to play cricket, enormous challenges remain. I was pleasantly surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, say that in the past five years cricket is the only game in which there has been an increase in the number of children participating on a frequent basis.
	Having been brought up in South Africa, where sport is almost a national religion, and which is blessed with good weather--unfortunately, we do not have much of that here--and which has privileged, excellent facilities, I have a particular passion for this subject. There is no doubt that team sports play an important part in both the physical and social development of all children.
	The ECB's report highlighted the fact that most children's experience of cricket is restricted to schools but that more and more young people are benefiting from cricket clubs, which have far more specialist coaches and team managers. It is essential that our most talented youth have access to both the coaching and the support which elite competitors need if they are to be world-class sportsmen and sportswomen of the future. There is no better time to talk about this matter than in the middle of the Olympic Games.
	There is no doubt that National Lottery funding for sport has paid off handsomely. I was pleased to see that Sport England is allocating 20 per cent of its lottery funds to youth sport and that cricket was one of the sports targeted by it in its five-year sports development programme aimed at young people.
	I entirely agree with the comments of the Minister for Sport, Kate Hoey, who said that,
	"achieving national sporting success depends on encouraging participation and developing and nurturing talent at an early age".
	My three minutes are almost up. This important subject is not just about more funding; it is not just about better facilities; nor is it just about better coaching and more competition or about winning and losing; it is all about a co-ordinated approach between government, schools, the ECB and all the other organisations that are involved in cricket to ensure that all our young people, both boys and girls, are given every opportunity to play cricket and, I hope, be the bedrock of England one day becoming the World Cup cricket champions.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for initiating this debate. I spoke in the debate on sports clubs on 19th April, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge. I am sure that all noble Lords will wish him a speedy recovery. We miss his expertise this evening.
	In that debate I said that I believed that Test and county cricket in particular were drawing their ranks from too small a base. If we want cricket to be a national game, we cannot depend on drawing players from public schools and fee-paying grammar schools. The net must be drawn far more widely than that. If we do not attract youngsters into the sport, its lifeblood will be gone for the future.
	I admire the ECB report which mentions kwik cricket and the amount of cricket that is played at primary schools. I was rather surprised to read that 84 per cent of secondary schools include cricket in their curriculum. I am amazed at that figure as I thought that it would be far lower. However, it is extremely welcome.
	I am also pleased to hear what is being done for the sport in inner cities. If we are to attract people not only to play but also to watch matches, we have to extend the sport in inner cities where the only sport that matters at the moment is football. Football has the advantage that it is easy to play provided one has a ball with which to play it.
	I was also pleased to note in the report that 26 per cent more girls are participating in cricket at secondary level than used to be the case. That is good as we have to encourage both sexes to be interested in cricket if the sport is to succeed. I also welcome the £750 million that has been mentioned which is to be allocated to schools and community clubs and the fact that 1,500 schools will benefit from that. Much of that money is to be spent on indoor and outdoor cricket pitches. That must be for the future good of the game.
	I return to the theme of my speech in the debate on sports clubs. The real lifeblood is the clubs. Sport is governed by them. I speak as president of Adlington Cricket Club which plays in the Bolton association. It runs teams for under-11s, under-13s, under-15s and under-18s. It represents the only opportunity those children have to play on a decent wicket and to be coached properly in the game. That is beneficial for the future, a factor which applies to all the teams in the Bolton association, the Bolton League, many of the league clubs and to cricket in general.
	I make the plea made previously by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for all voluntary sports clubs. I cannot understand why non-profit-making organisations cannot be treated in the same way as charities in relation to tax relief. I make that plea again today.
	I am pleased with the announcement of the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, regarding children and Test matches. But why does not county cricket give free tickets to youngsters, given that they would take their parents with them? Let us take a lesson from Rugby League. I am chairman of the Warrington Wolves Rugby League Club. Our gate receipts have increased 38 per cent this season, much of that from giving free tickets to children who bring their parents with them to the match. My plea is that we go in that direction as regards sport, and cricket in general.

Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, in a few days' time I shall have the great privilege and pleasure of becoming president of the MCC. It is highly timely that the noble Baroness has introduced this debate because after some dark years English cricket has begun to taste success. We have far to go: the series against Pakistan, twice; and with Sri Lanka and Australia coming up within the next year. But youth is fired by success and this is promising. I believe that we owe a great debt to the English Cricket Board and, notably, to my noble friend Lord MacLaurin for all they have done to restructure the game, create a national Test squad, bring us out of our darkest hours, and not least to lift the spirit. We are also fortunate that our recent opponents, the West Indies, played with such a marvellous sporting spirit.
	Last week the West Indies captain, Jimmy Adams, was the deserved winner of the first MCC Spirit of Cricket award presented by Ted Dexter, one of the giants of the game who chairs the MCC cricket committee.
	We at the MCC maintain at Lords what is probably the finest ground in the world at which all international players most aspire to play. We are home to Middlesex. We host youth international finals and the final of the national village cricket championships. We play 400 outmatches against schools and clubs. We have excellent and widely used coaching facilities. We train and encourage our own squad of young cricketers. I am glad to say that at last we run women's cricket teams.
	We also have responsibility for the laws of the games, recently revised by my noble friend Lord Cowdrey, to incorporate the spirit of cricket principle which places responsibility for the team's behaviour on the field firmly on the captain and gives extra powers to umpires. Behaviour such as intimidation, slow over rates, and appeals when the fielders know the batsman is not out are poor examples to youth.
	I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, has announced that there will be greater accessibility to major matches for youth. We at the MCC strongly support this. We want to give greater priority to state schools where the decline in participation and popularity has been all too marked. We want to advise them on preparation of pitches, to provide nets to community cricket associations free of charge, to establish links with inner-city cricket clubs, starting with Castleford in Yorkshire, and to pursue our Buxton MCC Cricket Challenge which concentrates on a very basic level of awareness and participation at primary schools.
	This game must raise more sponsorship. This is a virtuous circle: it depends on success. We at the MCC seek no public funds to make our contribution, but we urge the Government to continue to back in every way possible the ECB in its excellent and targeted work.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for introducing this debate. I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. I refer to the uplifting occasion when the huge crowd turned up for the final day of the Test match with the West Indies. That untapped enthusiasm for cricket was enormous encouragement. I agree with the noble Lord also that the West Indies side, although sporting, was, regrettably this year, very much below par of past West Indies performances, and the real challenges remain. We should recognise that our national side still under-performs and that enormous challenges lie ahead, culminating in the challenge of Australia next summer. We should recognise the extent to which we need to invest in our future by building up the cricketing skills of the nation.
	There is no doubt that we are reaping some of the inevitable consequences of the withdrawal from the teaching of and coaching in cricket by school teachers some 20 or 25 years ago for reasons that we do not have time to go into now. The sale of school playing fields meant reduced opportunities for children in state schools. I applaud the development by the England and Wales Cricket Board of inter-cricket which is a little friendlier in terms of the ball used and a little easier to organise. It does not require the same degree of preparation with regard to pitches.
	Cricket is a difficult, technical game with harsh penalties for failure. Those of us who have been "out" on the first ball of the morning in an all-day game know just how harsh that penalty can be for the batsman; and for bowlers the loss of confidence by one's skipper means that one does not have the chance to deploy one's rather dubious talents. One is reduced to fielding positions which can be somewhat hazardous.
	We should not under-estimate the real challenge that cricket represents in its techniques and requirements in terms of encouraging the enthusiasm and participation of young people. That is why we need additional coaches; and we need to start in the schools.
	I emphasise this point. A few years ago the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, introduced the famous test of what made an Englishman. In my constituency that weekend, on a summer evening, I sought to participate by just one ball or knock of the bat with Pakistani children playing street cricket. They had nowhere else to play. We should encourage the enormous enthusiasm of such youngsters and develop opportunities for them, guaranteeing more organised school cricket, so that they are welcomed by clubs. Cricket should be taught at university level. It can lead to a career. It is a skill. The older universities always regarded it in that way. When we give opportunities for those talented children of Pakistani origin, born in Britain but speaking with Oldham voices, to reach the heights in English cricket and to play for England, our country will be a better place and the performance of the English cricket team will improve.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, most warmly for introducing the debate. I believe that the ECB report is essential reading for anyone interested in cricket. It shows cricket to be, as it is, a socially inclusive sport. It is reaching out to all sections of the community in the countryside and inner cities alike.
	However, contrary to what a lot of people assume, cricket is not a rich sport. The ECB's annual turnover is less than that of most--not just a few--Premiership football clubs. As the governing body of cricket, with all the associated responsibilities, it does not have a lot of money. Despite having a very successful summer, the ECB lost more than £2 million of revenue in ticket sale returns because some of the Test matches finished so early. That has caused the board some significant financial difficulties and the impact on the funding of the game should not be underestimated.
	If the ECB does not have adequate funding, its efforts to develop cricket from the playground to the test arena and to improve standards in schools and clubs, as well as to ensure that all children in society have an opportunity to play the game on a decent surface and receive proper coaching, are at risk. Nobody who loves cricket and believes in the importance of sport to the health and well-being of society wants that outcome.
	The report also focuses attention on the lessons to be learned about grass-roots funding, the success of the cricket club junior sections and the recognition that
	"schools remain the natural vehicle to address participation for youngsters".
	It is a credit to the work of my noble friend Lord MacLaurin and his colleagues that they have focused on the key issues of participation and excellence. Without nurturing grass roots participation, we shall never achieve the excellence that we want to see tomorrow. That is fundamental, not just to cricket, but across sport. The relationship between clubs and schools is critical in developing participation.
	In my closing minute, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to extrapolate the lessons learned from the report--about the world of the drybobs--to the success of those who have been excelling as wetbobs in Sydney. There are many lessons in the ECB report that are of wide significance for British sport. Having had the honour and privilege to cox the British rowing eight to a silver medal in the Olympics 20 years ago, nothing has given me greater pleasure than seeing the success of the women rowers, the gold medal winning eight and coxless four and the remarkable achievement of Steven Redgrave, undoubtedly the most accomplished oarsman and finest endurance athlete in our lifetime and maybe in the history of the modern Olympiad.
	Yet rowers and those sportsmen and women who have the potential to reach finals in a wide range of world sporting events face a serious threat to their future. We cannot have international success without continuity of funding at the elite level as well as in schools. I urge the Government to do all in their power to resist making cuts in the world class performance programme, which gives grants to many of our sportsmen and women at the Olympics. Cuts of between 25 and 33 per cent are threatened in next April's funding round. One solution is to bring the programme directly into an enhanced Sports Council budget. We cannot let down our gold medallists and our aspiring world class sportsmen and women by standing by as coaches are made redundant, teams are ill prepared and direct support to our sportsmen and women could be massively reduced.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for introducing the debate. I should like to spend my few minutes concentrating on cricket clubs and their voluntary financing. It is surprising that, in announcing a generous amount for school sport over the next three years, the Prime Minister apparently made no reference to the role of clubs. The truth surely is that clubs and schools are interdependent for their success. We cannot have successful school sports without good local clubs. Many clubs provide the incentive for youngsters to try hard at school because they see their chums and their fathers and their friends having a whale of a time at the local cricket club. Clubs provide holiday play that would not otherwise be available. They also provide facilities and example. Above all, clubs are a microcosm of life. They are one of the few institutions that span the spectrum of social class and occupation. I cannot resist quoting G. M. Trevelyan, who said in his great English Social History:
	"If the French noblesse had been capable of playing cricket with their peasants, their chateaux would never have been burnt".
	Today's inner-city problems are not altogether dissimilar. Clubs often provide the only organic, vibrant, all-purpose, all-class, all-occupation centre of volunteering and pleasure in many of our more run-down areas. We have declining levels of volunteering, but sport provides more than a quarter of all volunteering. In a few years, there has been a decline in the 18-to-24 year age group from 55 per cent to 43 per cent of people volunteering. There has been a radical decline in regular participation in sport. Some 54 per cent of our active adult population do not participate in any regular sporting activity. We have what the British Medical Association describes as a rising epidemic of obesity, which has all sorts of economic and social ramifications.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandberg and the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, for mentioning the campaign that I am trying to run to get the Government to recognise that, if they gave incentives to citizens to dip into their own pockets to finance their local sports clubs of all kinds, it would be the most efficient and effective way of giving a boost to grassroots sport. It would mean getting the citizen to provide the bulk of the cash, with £3 or £4 coming from the citizen's pocket to only £1 tax relief from the Government. That is a good deal. It would be effective and unbureaucratic. People would be able to give money where they knew that it would count and could follow up to make sure that it did. I commend the support and leadership given to the campaign by Kate Hoey, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Sport England, the Rugby Football Union, the England and Wales Cricket Board and others.
	I cannot resist a final quote. Who said this?
	"Cricket civilises people and creates good gentlemen. I want everyone to play cricket ... I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen".
	It was none other than Robert Mugabe. What could be more telling than that?

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for affording us the albeit brief opportunity to highlight the importance of encouraging young people to take up cricket. I also join others in paying tribute to one of cricket's greatest role models, my noble friend Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge.
	I want to add my perspective as someone who, while occasionally supporting my husband from the sidelines, used to regard cricket as rather tame boys' own stuff. Now, having watched my twin sons, Leo and Christopher, play for the under-11 Berkshire county team this season, I am a complete convert.
	What I have enjoyed most is watching a group of young people selected from a number of schools in the state and private sector and with different ethnic backgrounds who, while at first apprehensive and tentative, joined together as a team, supporting each other and so obviously relishing the truly competitive spirit. Throughout the season, while parents focused on their sons' performance, the boys focused on the team and their collective will to win.
	I have no doubt that that very positive experience will seriously enhance the preparation for life of those lucky enough to have taken part. It is a far cry from the years during the 1970s when Labour-controlled councils and Left-wing dominated local education authorities outlawed competitive sport in schools because any form of competition was said somehow to compromise our children. The direct effect of that frankly criminal approach to sporting education has been dire for successive generations. We lost confidence in our ability to succeed, so we kept losing.
	At least now, with the Government's acceptance that competition is okay again, we can move forward. Thanks to the ECB, in conjunction with sponsors such as Vodafone and Channel 4, we can concentrate on nurturing talent from a young age and making cricket accessible to all young people.
	As with all development programmes, long-term finance and the support of key partners is essential to the success of encouraging young people not just to take part, but to build and retain enthusiasm for the sport. We need to ensure that we have a strategy that will guarantee commercial sponsorship for the continuing development of the game, as is the case with football and rugby.
	In addition, however much we invest in the game, standards will be raised only if we broaden the base of cricket by, I suggest, introducing more competitive levels of entry for the under-10, 11 and 12 age groups. In that way we could identify more cricketers at an early age and thereby provide a better feeder system for the county squads.
	My final thought is that there has been considerable discussion this summer regarding the depressing growth in the yob culture. In stark contrast, I return to those young players out on the field this season whose hearts and minds were collectively absorbed with the love of a game. We must all encourage greater participation, particularly in team sports, both within and outside the school gate. I pay tribute to all those who give of their time and impart their love of sport on a voluntary basis to encourage the young to take part.

Lord Addington: My Lords, this is one of those debates when one feels that the party divisions around the House have almost broken down. I say "almost". Even if those divisions are divisions of the past, they sometimes recur. However, the general gist of the debate is that we should play more sport and that one sport in particular--cricket--seems to have something to teach compared to other sporting traditions.
	It has also been stated that cricket is a technical sport that suffered from a problem of bad image. It has been seen as slightly unfashionable, uncool and unsexy (call it what one will) but has overcome those images and become more popular. Remarkably, until recently that has been achieved on very modest performances, and that is something else to be taken on board. If one works hard enough and has a cultural base, one can achieve.
	Another point to be taken on board is that we need guaranteed funding if we are to have success in sport. We need a continuous flow of funding. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out correctly that if a person is developed, it is important to ensure that they have the chance to develop fully and keep going. We must all remember that it is not enough to make sure that we have sufficient playing fields or better gyms. We must develop people after they have been to those gyms.
	We must also invest strongly in our coaches and ensure that they receive not only initial training but are kept up to date in their training. There is nothing quite so out-of-date or unmodern as yesterday's fashion. If we do not ensure that we have a rolling programme of training, we may as well not bother at all. We shall become fossilised in an era or a trend and we shall not progress. I shall leave that thought in the arena of the public domain.
	We are always trying to make sure that we can control the mind. From all sides of the House this evening we are trying to focus the mind of the Treasury. This matter must be addressed not only when times are good.
	I support the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Phillips and encourage the whole House to do so. We should ensure that voluntary clubs obtain a better deal from the tax man so that they can spend their own money in developing a base which takes on part of the role of schools. There has been a cultural shift in taking on people from school level and developing them to competition level, whether it be participatory or in the pursuit of excellence. The clubs represent an important step. A few people may jump over them but the vast majority will go through the club process on the way up and, it is hoped, on the way down.
	The report referred to today basically is a success story in times of adversity. I hope that we can learn from it and that the Government will remember that they must persevere with their support.

Lord Luke: My Lords, these Benches will wish to join with other noble Lords in sending best wishes to my noble friend Lord Cowdrey. We miss him very much this evening and look forward to his return, fully recovered, as soon as possible.
	In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for putting down this Question, I state an interest as a long-term member of the MCC and keen cricket follower. I congratulate and wish a great term of office to my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. My noble friend Lord MacLaurin and others have told us about the work that the ECB has done and is doing. The list of initiatives is most impressive, as is that of the MCC.
	It seems to me that four major factors affect the numbers of children who take an interest in and, it is hoped, learn to play cricket. The first is the availability of playing fields. Here I must ask the Government to stop all further erosion of such facilities. One in four primary and secondary school teachers believes that the facilities for outdoor sport in their schools are inadequate. The Conservatives will establish a database listing all school playing fields and will work closely with the National Playing Fields Association.
	Secondly, each primary and secondary school must have at least one teacher who is interested in and prepared to teach sports, including cricket. Teachers themselves need to be taught about sport, and particularly competitive team sport, in their initial teacher training colleges.
	The third factor is active encouragement by parents. That has already been mentioned by other noble Lords and is linked with my fourth factor; that is, the incomparable motivation which comes from national success--the hero syndrome. Who was not inspired by Alec Stewart's great innings at Old Trafford? And what about our world-class quartet of fast bowlers? And I mention Channel 4 for its new and refreshing attitude to cricket commentating, as well as its other support.
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that there would be an investment of £750 million over three years in schools and community sports. Of course, we welcome that wholeheartedly. However, can the Minister say whether or not the Government are responsible for allocating lottery money? After all, in the past we have seen this Government raid lottery funds meant for arts and sport and give them to the New Opportunities Fund. Therefore, are we now seeing a full turn of the circle?
	My right honourable friend John Major--that great friend of cricket--was responsible for a large number of initiatives to encourage sport in schools. The next Conservative government will revive many of those and in particular will simplify the national curriculum so that some schools will no longer have the excuse that they do not have time for sports.
	Cricket is in our blood. It is the best of games. Let us give it even more life with all our might. It is flourishing and that is a marvellous thing.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen for sparking this much too short but important debate about participation by young people in one of our national sports.
	When looking at the list of speakers, I could not help but see, at first discounting Front-Bench speakers, that 11 people made up the team this evening. I thought that the order in which they were due to speak might be the batting order and I considered it to be a rather impressive team. Imagine an opening partnership between my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen and the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin! No bowling side would not want to face that partnership. I believe that the middle order (consisting of my noble friend Lord Hoyle, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham) would also be pretty impressive. Until I listened to the debate I was not sure who would open the bowling for the team. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, bowled a bouncer or two in her intervention. I shall not call the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, an old war horse but oppositions would be very frightened to face his fast medium. My wicket keeper is without doubt that most experienced of ex-sports Ministers and coxes, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. All in all, it is a pretty fine team.
	More seriously, of course the Government congratulate the England cricket team and the ECB on the wonderful victory in the recent series. I am also very pleased that a number of noble Lords have mentioned the fact that this highly competitive series was played by both sides--winners and losers--in an amazingly good spirit. That contrasts slightly, perhaps, with some recent series in the not-too-distant past.
	One should not underestimate the positive effect of such performances by national teams on motivating young people to take up and participate in cricket. As has been said, millions of people take part in and watch the game and it is clear that cricket means a great deal to a very large number of people in this country. According to research undertaken by the ECB, in the United Kingdom there was a cumulative audience of more than 116 million people for 553 hours of coverage of the cricket world cup held last year in this country.
	The event, of course, also helped to stimulate the growth in the popularity of the game among women and a significant increase in ethnic support for cricket in this country. There is no room for complacency, and cricket, like other sports, requires investment and promotion so that it may continue as a leading and national sport which will interest future generations of young people.
	The Government believe that cricket, together with other sports, has a significant impact on other matters: health, education, building communities, the economy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, social inclusion. We are determined to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for all in every area, including sport. We shall continue to do our best to remove obstacles which prevent people making the most of their abilities. Our policy of "Sport for All" is aimed at encouraging everyone into sport.
	It is accepted generally that physical activity makes an important contribution to health. Benefits of increasing physical activity include a reduction in heart disease, strokes, hypertension and other illnesses. Any plans to increase participation must start with schools. But sports clubs and local authorities' sports development teams also have a crucial role. It is that link between adult provision and schools which seeks to ensure that pupils in their latter years at school are helped and encouraged to find their way into provision beyond their school years; to improve pathways to higher levels of competition for those with the potential; and to improve support for those who have reached national squads.
	Sports such as cricket offer tremendous opportunities to participants and are powerful tools in shaping attitudes and behaviour. If we want a fitter and more healthy population which demonstrates the qualities--the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe referred to these--of co-operation, working together, responsibility, self-discipline and determination, we need to ensure that the opportunities to participate in and enjoy the widest range of sporting activities are available to everyone.
	Cricket is one of the nation's foremost sports and has a crucial role to play. We support the ECB in its work to increase participation among young people through a number of initiatives and funding programmes. In taking forward the sports strategy "A Sporting Future for All", we are working to encourage all governing bodies, including the ECB, to have clear development plans for their sport, with a view to improving participation and performance at every level. We want to see more people of all ages and, importantly, of all social groups taking part in sport and, of course, more success for our top competitors and teams in international competition.
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced the new £750 million investment in school sport in Britain. Up to £750 million of new lottery funding will be invested in creating modern sports facilities, including indoor and outdoor cricket facilities. The investment will also pay for improvements to existing sports halls and playing fields. The funding comes from the next round of projects from the National Lottery's New Opportunities Fund and is subject to public consultation over the next few months.
	In England, the new money is part of a coherent investment package of just less than £1 billion over the next three years to put school sport back on its feet. The devolved administrations have their own programmes.
	We believe that the new investment will back the Government's sports strategy. We see particularly strong potential in the thousands of local sports clubs in this country. We want to link them more effectively with schools and to develop club networks that provide good junior sections and teams and coaching catering for every level of ability. It is particularly important that clubs should not be exclusive but should be open and welcoming to all.
	I turn to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I thank him for those comments and for the assistance which he is giving at present, in discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, on the charitable status and otherwise of voluntary clubs. I can tell the House that my honourable friend the Minister for Sport and her officials are currently considering the merits of special relief for community sports organisations. The Minister will discuss that issue with her Treasury colleagues and the Government will, in due course, reach their conclusions in the normal way. I cannot give commitments this evening but the issue is being given active consideration. Likewise, the department is also in discussion with the Charity Commission in relation to the wider issues of sports clubs seeking charitable status.
	Lottery funding has brought substantial benefits to cricket with well over 500 projects receiving awards totalling over £61 million. There have been 376 awards to cricket totalling over £1.1 million under the Awards for All programme. I could give the House examples but time runs on. The ECB is in the process of submitting a series of lottery applications for the installation of non-turf pitches at schools and clubs, all of which are committed to junior development.
	On 25th July of this year, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced a doubling of funding for sport by 2003-04 to reach a total of £102 million. An extra £85 million over three years will be mainly focused on encouraging increased participation in sport among young people.
	Cricket has been selected by Sport England to take part in the active sports programme, a five-year development plan aimed at young people at a local level through a partnership of clubs, schools, local authorities, education services and the England and Wales Cricket Board. Each of those partnerships has a full-time dedicated manager funded by Sport England and local sports agencies.
	The national curriculum requires that children are introduced to team games from the age of five. At present 12,588 primary schools are reported to be taking part in cricket and, as we heard, there was a 42 per cent increase in the past year in the number participating in the Wrigley Schools Kwik Cricket Tournament. Moreover, 84 per cent of secondary schools take part in cricket, which is an increase of 10 per cent over the previous year. Whichever way one looks at the figures, that must be encouraging. The ECB has also introduced the game, "inter cricket", of which my noble friend Lord Davies spoke.
	With regard to the identification and nurturing of talent, the ECB has submitted a performance plan to Sport England for consideration, with the aim of securing lottery funding under the world-class performance programme. The overall aim of the plan is to develop a structure which will bridge the gap between first-class county and international cricket. A decision on the plan should be made by the end of the year.
	The initiatives which the ECB is introducing have been explained clearly and well during the course of the debate. In particular, I commend the ECB on setting aside 11 per cent of the £26 million per year that it receives from broadcasting revenues for the development of cricket. The total number of those playing regularly has now reached more than 2.4 million people. The Howzat! development initiative has also been referred to. That is coming onstream in November 2000. The Cricket Foundation, through its development funding awards, has also raised around £3 million in 1999. So many congratulations to the ECB on the work that it is doing and has done so successfully in the past year. I offer my congratulations too to the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, on his re-election for another two years, a re-election which occurred, I believe, last week.
	I repeat my thanks to the noble Baroness for securing this evening's debate. It has been more than just helpful and interesting to hear the views of noble Lords on the promotion of cricket and participation by young people. I believe that there is consensus in the House that the Government, Sport England and the ECB are working together, which is also important, and are committed to providing and promoting opportunities for increased participation in cricket among young people so that its future as an important part of the nation's sporting life can continue. All of us here are biased. We all think that cricket is a wonderful game which has given us all individually, whether playing or watching, a great deal of pleasure. It is part of our job, I am sure, to ensure that many millions more feel the same.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 2, line 1, at end insert (", unless a contrary intention appears").

Baroness Byford: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 29 and 32 tabled in my name.
	Amendment No. 14 inserts on page 2, line 1:
	"unless a contrary intention appears",
	which is self-explanatory.
	Amendment No. 20 inserts at page 2, line 12:
	"'Inner London' means the area comprising the Inner London boroughs"
	and so on and so forth. We have tabled the amendments to ask the Government for clarification. Linked in the same group is Amendment No. 29 which inserts at page 2, line 18:
	"'owner' in relation to any land means ... any person, other than a mortgagee not in possession, who, whether in his own right or as trustee for another person, is entitled to receive the rack rent of the land, or, where the land is not let at a rack rent, would be so entitled if it were so let".
	Amendment No. 32 inserts at page 2, line 21:
	"'regulations' means regulations made by the Secretary of State (as respects England) or by the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales);
	"'telecommunications code' and 'telecommunications code systems' have the same meaning as in Schedule 4 to the Telecommunications Act".
	These amendments are important. They are to consolidate into one clause the definitions which apply in Part I. At present they are contained in Clause 1 and in Clause 41 at page 23. Seven of the 15 definitions in Clause 41 refer back to Clause 1. Clause 41 also contains important definitions of the owner, interest and status of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. It seems to us to be better to put such definitions into one place in the Bill.
	Subsection 2A leaves out a reference to Section 2(5) in the original provision of Clause 41(2). That relates to Amendment No. 85 which deletes the narrow definition of "owner" as "tenant farmer" in Clause 2(5). I beg to move.

Earl Peel: I wonder whether it would be appropriate for me to try to establish from the Minister the exact meaning of the term "owner" in the Bill. On any land which is likely to be access land, it is not clear to me whether it is the tenant or the owner of the land who has the responsibility for exercising the options under Schedule 2 and Chapter II.
	Perhaps I may give an example. I refer to allotment land or new take land, which is a term used in Devon. I presume that if anything untoward occurred, it would be the tenant who would exercise powers under Schedule 2 and Chapter II. In that case, requesting the offender to leave the land would, as I understand it, apply only to the land in the ownership of that tenant or, indeed, of an owner occupier. However, presumably if the tenant rented additional land, such land would also be included as part of the excluded land.
	But if the offence of trespass took place on the open hill and the tenant had only the grazing rights, albeit as part of the tenancy of the in-bye land, I assume that the owner of the land or his employee would exercise the sanctions against the trespasser. I assume that on the grounds that the grazer does not have what is known in agricultural terms as exclusive possession.
	That being the case, presumably the person in breach of the regulations would be excluded from entering all open land owned by the same person. However, I wonder whether that would include land owned by the same individual but subject to a tenancy? Further to that is the question of common land where I assume the right to operate such sanctions would rest with the owner and would therefore include any other common land that he owned within the access area. I also wonder whether a commoner, somebody who has the rights to graze on that land, who found somebody contravening either Schedule 2 or Chapter II, would have the right to ask that person to leave the common, or would he have to ask the owner to exercise the exclusion?
	As the Bill stands, it is unclear as to who exercises such rights. The idea of trying to explain to a trespasser which land he is precluded from will be an additional problem which again we need to consider carefully. I know that we are not dealing with it now, but I suspect that it will be much easier to make it obligatory under the Bill to include all access land as covered under Amendment No. 91. We will no doubt deal with that when we come to it. However, it would be immensely helpful if the Minister could explain to the House who is responsible for dealing with somebody who transgresses these offences and becomes a trespasser.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will forgive me for saying that there are two kinds of amendments in this group. One kind is technical and, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has made clear, one is important. The technical amendments concern where the different definitions should appear in the Bill. The amendments provide that many more of the definitions which are otherwise found in Clause 41 are brought forward into Clause 1. The reason for that is simple. It has been followed in the drafting of legislation for many years. Unless there is to be a whole definition section in a Bill, which may be necessary but does not appear to be here, they appear where they are needed. In other words, where the definitions are needed for Clause 1 of the Bill, they are included in Clause 1 to make it easier to understand that clause; where they are needed in the course of Part I, they are included at the appropriate point; where it is only a matter of clarification at the end, they are included in Clause 41 at the end of Part I. That is simply a drafting issue.
	But Amendments Nos. 29 and 32 are much more significant, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, recognised. They would provide that a person who breaches a restriction on access land and is rendered a trespasser, would lose the right of access to all land in the ownership of the person entitled to the rack-rent of the land; that is usually the freeholder.
	The definition being asked for by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, appears in Clause 2(5), which provides that,
	"'owner', in relation to any land which is subject to a farm business tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 or a tenancy to which the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 applies, means the tenant under that tenancy, and 'ownership' shall be construed accordingly".
	That is the formal answer to the question of the noble Earl.
	However, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked more on that point. He wanted to know what is the effect of that definition. It is legally correct but I agree that it is not explicit. Where a person is subject to a farm business tenancy, then it is true that the statutory right of access is lost for the whole of that land. Where the land is not subject to a farm business tenancy, then the statutory right of access is lost to the whole of the land belonging to the freehold owner.
	The noble Earl suggests that it is more complicated for a trespasser--I am glad to see his concerns for the problems of the trespasser--to know whether any other land is likely to be owned in the sense of Clause 2(5); in other words, in the possession of the tenant or the owner in the terms in which the Act is drafted. It may be difficult, but it is nothing like as difficult as expecting the trespasser to know what other land is in the possession of the freehold owner, which is what Amendments Nos. 29 and 32 provide. I agree that in the less common cases, where a tenant has dispersed land with gaps in between, there could be a problem for the trespasser in knowing whether he is excluded from other land which is not contiguous. But it is much less of a problem than would be created by the amendments before us.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, also asked whether a commoner can ask a person in breach to leave the land. Let me make it clear that the definition of "owner" has no effect on who may require a trespasser to leave the land. That is a matter of private law. It depends on the specific arrangement made between the landowner, his tenant and any others with rights over the land, such as sporting tenants. The Bill does not take away any rights which those people may have to exclude trespassers; it merely demarcates the area of land to which a trespasser may not return.
	Generally, commoners will not have any right to require trespassers to leave the common, whether under the present law or under the Bill. But a commoner may be authorised by a landowner to act as his agent in that regard. In those circumstances he would have the right to require a trespasser to leave the land.

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps he will clarify that point again for me, because he was going quite fast.
	As I understood him, he said that it was a matter of private law as to who could ask a trespasser to leave. Can he take that a stage further? Does he mean that only one person or only one party can ask a trespasser to leave? If a freeholder has a farm tenant over whose land a third party has sporting rights and over which another party has an interest, can only one out of the four ask a trespasser to leave or can all four separate parties ask a trespasser to leave?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My first and most important answer is that there is no change proposed in the present law. If there are circumstances under the present law where more than one person can ask a trespasser to leave, that will be continued under the Bill as it stands. I do not know whether more than one can make that demand, but I imagine that, bearing in mind the vast complexity of private law, there must be circumstances in which more than one of the four could ask a trespasser to leave. That will continue to be the case. It is not an issue in this Bill.

The Earl of Caithness: It may not be an issue in the Bill, but it is an important point that it would be helpful to have clarified at this stage. Perhaps if the fifth cavalry can come to the Minister's assistance in due course, the Minister will inform the Committee what the present law is.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is that, where there is an owner and a tenant and, for example, a sporting tenant, there are in existence cases where more than one person can ask a trespasser to leave and that will continue. We do not believe, where there is a tenancy, it is necessary to exclude a trespasser from all the land owned by the freeholder. That could be extremely large, perhaps extending to thousands of hectares in different parts of the country--I do not look at any Members opposite when I say that. More importantly, such a provision would be difficult to enforce. How would a farm tenant know that a person had broken a restriction on a neighbouring tenant's land, or even the land of the neighbour's neighbour? We will of course return to this matter when we come to debate Clause 2. But our view is that this amendment would not be practical and it is not desirable.

Baroness Hamwee: I do not know whether I am the cavalry; I doubt it. But I hope I do not make the situation more complicated. Clause 21 tells us who is an entitled person in connection with Section 2. An "entitled person" is,
	"the owner of the land, and any other person having an [defined] interest in the land and falling within a prescribed description".
	I am sure that the Secretary of State has views as to what descriptions of people will be described within Clause 21(3)(b). Perhaps the Minister could tell us. It would help in taking forward the debate to know whether there is any widening under that. Subject to that, Clause 21(3) supports the common-sense view that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explained.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that is right. But the use of the word "prescribed" is always a get-out for government in legislation. We use the word when we propose to prescribe provisions in secondary legislation.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response and for the clarification. He said that a trespasser may not know from which land he is excluded and it could be that the owner or tenant has other land. That is a problem to which we will return as discussions go forward. I do not see how any trespasser will know whose land he is on in any case. That is a problem with the Bill and not simply with the specifics raised by my noble friend. We certainly need clarification of owners' and the Government's view on that and I thank the Minister for that response. With those comments I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 2, line 9, at end insert--
	(""designated access point" means a location of access to access land shown in conclusive form issued by the appropriate countryside body for the purposes of this Part;").

Lord Glentoran: Amendment No. 15 returns to the theme of improving the management of access. It refers to "designated access point"; that is,
	"a location of access to access land shown in conclusive form issued by the appropriate countryside body for the purposes of this Part.
	As the Bill stands, persons are allowed to enter access land at any point; for example, they are allowed to climb a wall or fence even if there is a gate 50 metres away. Access, in our view, should be made at specific points. That has many advantages in managing access and in helping people to enjoy it and be responsible users of the countryside. Perhaps I may list some of the points of support. Responsible walkers will want easy and convenient access by gate or stile. Convenient access points will be shown on access maps. The Bill allows entry on to access land at any point. If the land is open to a road, few problems will be caused. If the land is enclosed, difficulties will ensue. Climbing walls or fences is liable to cause injury and damage. The amendments protect dry stone walls. Open boundaries to access land increase difficulties in signing bylaws, exclusions and advice about land. Designated access points can be signed and notification of extra rights, exclusions and restrictions can be given with a sensible number of notices. In other words, anyone wondering what is happening on a particular piece of land will go to a known access point--it will be known because it will be marked on the map--and will know what is happening on that piece of access land.
	Furthermore, better information can be provided for walkers about how the land can be maintained, its special features, any SSSIs, the wildlife, the expected behaviour and the enjoyment they can derive. It prevents the need for large numbers of signs in the open country showing that land is or is not access land.
	Designating access points also concentrates minds at an early stage on the accessibility of land. At Second Reading in the other place, Mr Meacher said that:
	"one must take account of accessibility, which might require a further delay, depending on the circumstances".--[Official Report, Commons, 23/3/00; col. 725.]
	These amendments take account of accessibility. Mr Meacher also said that special protection for dry stone walls could be considered in Committee, adding:
	"I accept that the landscape of many areas would be greatly improved if dry stone walls were restored".--[Official Report, Commons, 23/3/00; col. 722.]
	I can give Members of the Committee a wonderful example of that in my own province in the Mourne mountains. For several years, there has been a great scheme for restoring dry stone walling and the countryside is wonderful. I see the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, nodding. When Mr Meacher said that he would not devote any more of his speech to dry stone walls honourable Members asked, "Why not?".
	Mr Mullin conceded:
	"The idea of designated access points is a good one",--[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 30/3/00; col. 66.]
	but he did not accept that such access should be mandatory. We suggest that the designation of access points in many areas of what will become access land would be a wise and sensible amendment to make to the Bill. It would allow for easier communication with the general public and will allow them to know where they are starting from and the state of the country as regards safety and so forth. Furthermore, it is hoped that educational material will be passed to the general public in a tasteful and sensible way. I beg to move.

Viscount Bledisloe: Once again, we are curiously served by the grouping because, far from having too many issues grouped together, we have too few. We have the definition of a designated access point but no indication of what one is to do with it when one has found it. It becomes relevant only when one turns to Amendment No. 72, which provides that people shall enter only by means of designated access points.
	If the Minister wants to tell me that he would rather deal with the matter when we reach Amendment No. 72, I shall immediately stop. Is he saying that or is he agreeing that I should stop on principle?

Lord Whitty: Possibly both, but it is true that the amendment does not involve the mandatory nature of designated sites. That will arise with Amendment No. 72. If the noble Viscount is about to talk about mandatory issues, that would be more appropriate when we reach Amendment No. 72.

Viscount Bledisloe: I shall follow the Minister's advice.

Lord Williamson of Horton: I agree with my noble friend that we are in a dilemma because the single amendment with which we are dealing relates to a definition. However, we do not know what will be done with the designated access points at a later stage. It is a paving amendment but there seems to be no pavement after it.
	The amendments with which we shall deal later are different because Amendment No. 70 proposes that people should inform themselves at the designated access points. I believe that that is an excellent idea. Amendment No. 72 proposes that they should enter by such points. Therefore, we are now paving the way for different amendments.
	Amendment No. 15 provides a definition and as this is the first time we have dealt with the issue of designated access points, I intervene, first, because I believe it is important and, secondly, in a spirit of jubilation because we have reached page 2 of the Bill. But that is en passant.
	The given definition must be right and I believe that the proposed definition is good. It provides that the designated access points must be issued in a conclusive form, so there will no great argument about whether they will be here, there or anywhere else. That is important in particular for walkers. They need to know and will go to such points to seek out information which they might gain under the provisions of Clause 19. Furthermore, the amendment allocates the responsibility to the appropriate countryside body, which also seems correct.
	Therefore, following the grouping, which in this case contains only one amendment, I support it because I believe that it is a good one.

Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question before he replies. I apologise if the point has already been touched on. Does he agree that where access land is surrounded on all sides by non-access land there must be some kind of footpath or other right-of-way agreement in order to make the access land accessible by the general public?

Lord Whitty: Although we specifically debated this matter before dinner, we partly dealt with it previously. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, was not totally convinced by my reply and I suspect that we shall return to the matter at a later stage. Clearly, a good deal of land will be contiguous and have some form of access to it. In other respects the right of access may need to be addressed, but the principle of the right of access for designated land is not altered by the fact that there is a surrounding area of land to which no access rights apply. There may be ways around that through the process of negotiation before the final position is established. In the particular context of fast-track land, I do not believe that this issue will arise very frequently. However, the noble Lord has just raised a more general issue to which we shall no doubt return.
	As to the amendment itself, we are all agreed that it would be useful for the countryside agencies to identify the best point of access and provide information, education and so forth at that point. Therefore, we are all in favour of designated access points. I am also in favour of the countryside agencies having responsibility for identifying those designated access points in consultation with others. The question of making them mandatory will be addressed later. Therefore, we have no problem with the amendment in principle: we want the countryside agencies to identify designated access points.
	The difficulty is: on what maps should they be identified? The role of statutory maps for the conclusive definition, as the amendment implies, is to show what is mountain, moor, heath and down registered common land. That is the sole, essential purpose of the statutory maps. However, those maps are unlikely to be the ones that the average hiker carries in his rucksack. Walkers tend to use maps and guides which are produced by commercial organisations, their own associations and so forth, which show the area of local countryside. I expect those kinds of user-friendly maps to show the main access, information points, markings and so forth so that access to that land is dealt with in as detailed a way as possible. It is important that the access points are marked on that kind of map rather than on something that sits in the local library and which is the statutory map that designates the land as such.
	There is nothing to prevent the countryside agencies indicating the location of access or information at the same time as they produce the statutory maps. That is what the countryside agencies propose to do. There is a difference between the statutory map and the guidance map which indicates preferred or designated access areas. Although I understand the intention of the amendment as it stands and agree with it--I do not necessarily agree with some of the consequences to which it paves--to identify that as being on the statutory map itself is the wrong approach.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for his agreement. If it is on the statutory map I believe that it will end up on all others. Those who produce the user map (for want of a better word) will get their legal base right from the statutory map. I hope that in due course they will appear on statutory maps.
	Perhaps at this stage I may voice a complaint. Tonight I have moved three groups of amendments. The problems with all of them have been appalling. It was extremely difficult to move the first group of amendments, which made no sense. As to the second group, Amendment No. 33 should not have been there and has not been moved. I totally agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that Amendment No. 15 standing on its own is silly. Considering that those who arrange these groupings have had the whole of the Summer Recess in which to deal with it, the list indicates that they do not understand the Bill. I hope that any further groupings of amendments will be significantly more realistic than those with which we are trying to work.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I believe that the normal procedure, which has been followed, is that a proposed list of groupings is provided. It is then up to those who have tabled amendments to deal with it. If a problem has arisen and that list has not been available I apologise. I can only believe that it happened because the House did not sit until today.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I was not consulted either. I expressed my view privately earlier. I assumed that this arose because it was the first day of the sitting. We have found the list unhelpful, particularly in relation to our amendment about firearms and night access. Some of the other groupings have not been helpful. I am sure that in future we shall be consulted.

Baroness Byford: From these Benches perhaps I may clarify the position for the benefit of the Minister who has just intervened. The draft list was made available and it was really up to us to go through it and ensure that the amendments were grouped as we believed they should be. The problem in sorting this out is perhaps in part attributable to the fact that we have literally returned today. It will not happen in future. I do not want the Government Bench to understand that the groupings have not been made available to us; they have.

Lord Glentoran: Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 2, line 12, at end insert--
	(""local access forum" means a body established under section (Local Access Fora) and references to a local access forum mean the local access forum established by the relevant access authority;").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 102. The purpose of these two amendments is to put local access forums on the face of the Bill. The first amendment establishes a definition for them; the second amendment provides a mechanism by which they can be set up. The theme running through the Bill is that local people will be consulted. That is a wide definition of people. It will include not only landowners and users but also--unlike the amendments grouped with it, to which I am sure those who put them down will speak--climbers, wild life group interests where they have no de facto rights, riders with horses and so on. We would like to keep the definition of "local access forum" as wide as is suitable locally.
	There is a definite need to set up these forums. I think that that has always been agreed by the Government, because when they published their proposals for improving access to the countryside in March 1999 they recognised that local access forums would play a key role. There has been no disagreement between these Benches and the Government on the importance of the role the forums would have to play. The difference has been that the Government have been hoping that the forums would be able to be non-statutory bodies. Of course at the back of that issue is the resources which would be made available to them because the Countryside Agency, when discussing its role in producing draft guidance, stated:
	"The cost of setting up and running local countryside access forums will fall to the local and national park authorities responsible for them".
	Further on in the same paper it said:
	"The Agency will not be able to contribute to the development of local countryside access forums if additional funding is not provided by the Government".
	As the Minister indicated earlier, the Government are beginning to think that these forums should be on the face of the Bill. I hope that that recognition will be reflected in providing the funding for them. The time and effort of setting them up will--and rightly should--fall on local authorities. They will be desperately needed if the Countryside Agency is not to be judge and jury at the same time on a number of issues, from the very initial stage of producing the draft map right through to how this will work in practice.
	In its briefing of 4th September 2000 the Countryside Agency said:
	"There is an opportunity for local forums to be used as part of local government's long term arrangements for liaison and consultation with local interests on the provision and mmanagement of recreation and access".
	That is a very important point. They must be much wider than simply being a mechanism by which the legislation can be put in place. But that of course would be their first and very crucial role. These local forums need to be established rapidly if they are to play a useful role because of the speed with which the mapping will need to be started, a point touched on by the Minister and other noble Lords earlier this evening.
	In the Commons Committee debate on 4th April, Mr Mullin said:
	"In some cases, it might not even be necessary to have a forum"--
	but I think that generally it is accepted that those moments have passed. He continued,
	"but many areas will urgently require such a body".
	When my friend David Heath pressed the point as to who would establish the local access forums Mr Mullin said:
	"it is for the Countryside Agency to insist on the establishment of such bodies where they are thought to be desirable".--[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 4/4/2000; col. 97.]
	However, without the mechanism in the Bill I think it would be very difficult for the Countryside Agency to insist that they should be established, especially where there are no resources to do so.
	Contrary to the fears that may have been around initially that the access forums may be a mechanism by which the whole process would be slowed down, I think that they will play a key role in making the process workable and streamlining it locally. Clearly, if interests groups began to use them for those purposes that would be quite wrong. It is for those reasons that I have drafted all our amendments very carefully so that the access forums should be consulted. There is a duty on the agency to consult the access forums but there is not in my amendments a mechanism by which the access forums can bring the whole process to a grinding halt. I think that is right. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate on what he said earlier in terms of feeling that they are a very good idea now. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: Without pre-empting any subsequent debate, it may be helpful if I indicate and confirm that we have now considered whether local access fora should be put on a statutory basis. We now accept what the noble Baroness has said, that without specific reference in the Bill to the fora, there would be concern that due weight would not be accorded to their views. We therefore intend to bring forward at Report stage substantive amendments in this area. That will give the local access fora rights on advising on the new rights of access and indeed on recreational issues more generally, as the noble Baroness wishes. I thought it would be useful for me to say that.

Lord Hardy of Wath: I thank my noble friend for that most helpful and welcome contribution. Perhaps I may press him on one or two points of detail relating to the amendments. As I see it, there is a weakness in the two amendments proposed by the Liberal Democrats in that they would have the composition of the forum restricted to the owner or farmer on the one hand and the rambler or user on the other. I prefer, but with qualification, the amendment tabled by the Conservative Benches which refers to the parish councils. A good parish council, which might have a deep interest in the matter, especially in common land within its parish, would be incensed if a body under the auspices of government ignored it. While my noble friend should take note of the parish council suggestion, he should also consider the fact that, while one would have on the forum the user or walker and the farmer or landowner, with or without the parish council, there would be no one with any ecological knowledge of the area in question. There should be an ability to appoint to such a forum someone with a detailed knowledge of the fauna and flora. I trust that the point about the parish council will be borne in mind. I say that as vice-president of the Yorkshire Local Councillors Association and also because I believe that we ought to try to promote a decent relationship between the bodies that might be in conflict. A third voice knowledgeable on conservation matters could make a helpful and perhaps a healing contribution.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, read my amendment in that way. Perhaps I may clarify the point. Amendment No. 102 states that a local access forum,
	"shall include persons whom the access authority considers able to represent the interests of owners and occupiers of access land ... and of those who may wish to exercise the right of access over it".
	That would certainly encompass parish councils. It could encompass anyone else with a particular interest. It would vary from areas with crags where climbers might be involved to those with people on horseback who had de facto rights. Under subsection (3) of Amendment No. 102, there is provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the composition and operation of local access fora. That is a safeguard to ensure that they do not become exclusive.

Viscount Bledisloe: When the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, brings forward his amendments, will he undertake to follow the civilising example of the Liberal Democrat Benches and recognise that the plural of "forum" is "fora" and not fall into the appalling solecism perpetrated by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, of describing them as "forums"?

Earl Peel: I wish to speak briefly to the amendment. In principle I have no difficulty with access fora, although if they are to work effectively it is essential that they represent all interested groups fairly. As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, pointed out, it would be essential for there to be proper parish representation.
	I have no difficulty with the principle that lies behind the amendment, but I hope that the provisions will not be used to bog down procedures. If every detail is referred back to the fora, we are in danger of seeing the working relationship between the landowner or the tenant and the access authority--that is the crucial relationship here--being harmed. That relationship must work effectively and efficiently so that people have confidence in it. When closure orders or by-laws are considered, I hope that, as far as possible, they will be provided for on a national basis so that we avoid the danger of introducing too many procedures, which will only confuse everyone. Indeed, more than anyone else the walker will encounter difficulties.
	I urge the Minister to accept the principle that as few local restrictions as possible should be imposed and that as many national understandings as possible should be put in place. That will streamline the provisions of the Bill so that they can properly be understood by everyone. I stress that I am not against the principle of local groups, but I hope that they will not be used merely as an excuse to bog down and delay procedures. In many circumstances, the speed at which such matters are settled will be essential to the proper management of the land.

Lord Glentoran: Perhaps I may bring one further point to the Minister's attention. I understand that some of the park authorities which act as access authorities intend, subject to the will of their respective local authorities, to act on behalf of such neighbouring local authorities, which may well comprise borough councils and so forth. For that reason, when we discuss favourably the role of parish councils, can I ask the Minister not to exclude the possibility of representation by borough councils working with access authorities which may in fact be establishing such fora?

The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister for his announcement, because I have tabled Amendment No. 211 to establish local forums--or local fora, in deference to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
	I believe that one of the few mechanisms that will enable the Bill to work effectively will be to establish such fora. However, as my noble friend Lord Peel has just pointed out, difficulties and problems may be encountered with such groups. We need to consider the size of the fora and the commitment that will be required of the members. Farmers and landowners are extremely stretched. They will need to give up even more of their precious time to serve on the fora. Unless farmers, owner-occupiers and tenants make available that time, the fora will not be able to undertake their tasks effectively. The groups cannot become talking shops; they must evolve as positive institutions working within a national framework. We shall discuss specific amendments addressing such a framework in due course.
	I point out only that the more that can be agreed nationally, the easier it will be for the fora to work properly and effectively and, indeed, the easier it will be for those who wish to utilise the benefits conferred by the Bill.
	I hope that the Minister will now be in a position to give the Committee further details on how funding will be made available for the new fora, how he sees them working and, lastly, on their size. Perhaps it would be helpful if the noble Lord were to agree to meet between now and the next stage of the Bill those noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this matter. Thus when we reach the Report stage and are more limited in the time available to discuss the matter, we shall at least have had an opportunity to meet him and to express our views. His officials will then be able to take them into account when drafting the government amendments.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I urge the Minister to pay no attention to the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. We are not talking about market places in the middle of Roman towns; we are talking about the English word "forum", the plural of which is "forums". The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, quite rightly used that word. I hope that he will continue to use it in spite of the fact that he seemed to be giving way to some rather intellectual blackmail which was of no interest.

Lord Greaves: I stand shoulder to shoulder with the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in believing that the English word is "forums", despite the fact that the amendment states otherwise. I noticed that my noble friend Lady Miller said "forums" five times and "fora" three times; the Minister said "fora" twice and "forums" once. Whatever we do, let us stick on one and decide what we will call them. In my part of Lancashire, folk stopped talking Latin quite a long time ago.
	On behalf of these Benches I thank the Minister for what he said about local access forums. We look forward to seeing the form of wording he comes back with. There are a number of reasons why we believe it is important that local access forums should be statutory bodies written into the Bill. First, it gives people an assurance and a guarantee that they will exist. Without it, some local access authorities may well, at the very least, drag their feet and perhaps set them up in a half-hearted way and not treat them seriously.
	Secondly, it will allow reference to them in other parts of the Bill. We have put down amendments on that basis. It also means that in terms of regulation and secondary legislation--although it is not necessary to name them in the Bill for that purpose--it makes the whole issue clearer.
	We want to see the forums playing an active role throughout the whole process. For example, if at the mapping stage draft maps are produced by the Countryside Agency--even though there might have been consultation locally with land owners--and it lands those draft maps on people who have not seen them before that stage, it would be likely to lead to immediate reactions and conflict. On the other hand, if local access forums are involved at a very early stage in the consultation process when the Countryside Agency is carrying out the initial mapping, it is far more likely that the result of the initial mapping will, at the very least, be something which will lead to consensus locally.
	Later in the Bill we shall be talking about public rights of way plans and improvement plans. The access forums have a crucial role to play because there is a great feeling among many people--especially people associated with bridleways, for example--that Part II of the Bill will not lead to an improvement of the rights of way network but to a worsening of it, because of the capping and so on, and to a failure to carry out the work within 25 years, which they see as likely. Local access forums playing an active role will be a bulwark, a guarantee, a means of providing the initiative and motivation to get on with not only getting the definitive map, the historic record, right, but also getting the improvements in the rights of way network which are so desperately needed in many areas.
	We believe that these forums are a key part of what is being proposed. That is why it is important that they are incorporated in the Bill. It is a guarantee that they will not be a seven-day wonder but will be here next year, in 10 years' time, in 25 years' time.
	It is interesting that support for the idea of local forums comes from right across the spectrum. The Countryside Alliance has sent us a briefing urging us to set up local access forums. If I am on the same side as the Countryside Alliance either something dreadfully wrong is going on or we are right.

Baroness Byford: I should like to speak to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and also to my amendment in this grouping. I thank the Minister for indicating that the Government will return with some amendments that will enable the access forums to be established.
	The reason that my amendment included parish councils in an area of access land--and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath--is that in the past one has often found that the consultation takes places at either county or district level and that it does not go down to parish level. Often, some of the problems that will occur are on the ground at parish level. It was not meant to exclude others but we wanted particularly to have them included.
	Perhaps I may refer what was said by Mr Mullin when the matter was debated in the Commons on 20th March. It is important that I raise it. He said:
	"Let me stress the importance of local access forums"--
	which he clearly recognised. But he went on to say:
	"It is important not to push such matters through in the teeth of local opposition, but to ensure that all local interests are properly represented".--[Official Report, 20/3/00, Commons; col. 814.]
	In responding to this group of amendments, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will clarify the difference now that there will be a provision on the face of the Bill in spite of possible opposition locally. I am not sure how the Government see themselves as squaring that. On these Benches, we welcome and support the setting up of local access forums, or "fora"--I do not quite know which one to say.
	I should like to highlight the problem that has been raised by other Members of the Committee on the question of funding, on which I suspect the Minister will respond. Perhaps I may comment also on the size of these groups. One point that has emerged from the discussions that I have had with various groups is that if we are not careful we may see yet more layers of bureaucracy, which would take more time and delay the very process that we are trying to achieve. Although I know that the Minister will return with a specific proposal at Report stage, it would be helpful if he would respond to one or two of the queries that have been raised at this stage. If he cannot, perhaps he will take away our comments for specific consideration.
	Finally, I highlight this whole issue. We on these Benches would be more reassured if we had some basic national formula or view on the local access forums. I accept that there will be flexibilty; that is inevitable, depending on the kind of area that they will cover and cope with. But it would be helpful to have a basic framework on which to build. If the Minister will answer those comments I shall be grateful.

Lord Whitty: I am grateful for all contributions. I believe that, broadly speaking, we are all moving in the same direction. I shall have to consider many of the points that were made and take them back to my colleagues before we come up with the final proposals.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, indicated, there is a vital role in achieving common sense solutions at local level. Although some matters can be prescribed at national level by legislation or guidelines, many matters can only be resolved by maximising the degree of consensus at local level both in anticipation of the new rights and in operating those rights. As the noble Lord also said, there is a role in relation to Part II of the Bill.
	I think we should return on Report to issues such as membership and how far we want to lay that down nationally. We want to retain a degree of flexibility while recognising that there are interest groups other than those prescribed in the original amendment which would need to be considered for membership.
	So far as concerns funding, we have indicated that we have in mind adequate funding. That will include funding of the access authorities and the local access forums. I said "forums" that time. Obviously the key issue involved in this section is to sort out the plural! All of us are a bit schizophrenic about this. I expect that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and I have some vague recollection of someone trying to teach us Latin. In my case, it was probably when it was still a living language! It is some time back. I am assured that Fowler's Modern English Usage prefers the word "forums" and has done so since 1926. Therefore, I suspect that any final version will be set out in line with that and with the noble Earl's original prescription.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before we leave the subject of forums and funding, can the Minister say whether the Government have considered how these maps will be paid for? There will be many maps on the go. As the noble Lord will know, the Ordnance Survey Department holds the copyright. An Ordnance Survey disk covering about 2,000 acres of land costs something like £40 a year. Anyone who has the use of that disk has to pay more. Therefore, there will have to be some kind of funding to deal with the Ordnance Survey, or a great deal of money will be exchanging hands. Does the noble Lord know anything about that? If he does not, perhaps he will agree to take it into account when considering what all this will cost.

Lord Whitty: I should perhaps undertake to take the matter into account. Most people will acquire their maps in the same way as at present. It is the provision of public information that will need to be covered by the funding. This will certainly be taken into account.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his comments. I believe that the Government have been well served in this instance by the Countryside Agency, which produced draft guidance on local and national park authorities' local countryside access "forums"--a word with which we seem to be sticking. That seems to have pre-empted many of the issues that noble Lords raised tonight, including the size of the membership and how to stop it becoming unwieldy by suggesting that the 16 to 20 members network with others. The draft guidance issued at the beginning of the month will provide a very solid and sound framework, which means that it should not take too long to perfect the system. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 2, line 14, at end insert--
	(""open air recreation" means recreational activities necessarily carried out in the open air;").

Baroness Byford: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 67 and 69. These amendments deals with the definition of "open air recreation". It may sound ridiculous, but the amendment defines that expression as meaning,
	"recreational activities necessarily carried out in the open air".
	The phrase "open air recreation" is not defined in the Bill. My amendment would prevent it being any recreation carried out in the open air. Outdoor rock climbing, hill walking, kite flying, orienteering or walking outdoors are obviously normal pursuits that we assume would be covered by the amendment. However, organised football games or other sports would, I presume--again, I should like the Minister to clarify this--not be included.
	The Bill mentions walkers in particular. Therefore, I assume that that is what is meant by "open air recreation". I have tried to make one or two suggestions as regards what I believe it includes--namely, rock climbing, hill walking, kite flying, orienteering and walking outdoors--but obviously that would not include organised games played outdoors. I should be most grateful for some clarification on that point.
	Amendment No. 67 suggests leaving out the words "remain on" and inserting "walk over". When the Bill was introduced, the Minister made it absolutely clear that it addressed the right of access on foot for the purpose of walking; in other words, the "right to roam". It was for walkers and not for other recreational groups. The current reference to "open-air recreation" makes this far from clear. Indeed, it also has the effect of complicating the Bill by necessitating much of the content of Schedule 2.
	If this amendment were accepted, there should be no need to specify that those exercising this new right of access over the land defined as access land must not bathe, hold organised games and so on. It should be clear that this Bill facilitates walking from point A to B, or wherever people may wish to walk within their legitimate means. Thus anything at odds with that is not permitted by the Bill. Clearly if while walking one stops for a rest or a sandwich, one should not be in danger of being prosecuted for not physically walking at that particular moment. I hope that the Minister will take that into account. We need greater clarification and that is why I have proposed the inclusion of the words "walk over".
	Amendment No. 69 states,
	"Page 2, line 23, after ("recreation") insert ("on foot").
	At Second Reading in this House the Minister twice said (at cols. 629 and 749) that the right of access would be a right of access "only" "on foot". I believe that was intended as an assurance, but it would be helpful to have it on the face of the Bill. If it was not intended as an assurance, I shall be more inclined to press the amendment.
	In the Commons a similar amendment was resisted on the grounds that it would exclude wheelchair users, or prevent people taking photographs (cols. 103-109). I accept that the amendment as drafted is technically slightly flawed as someone who is in a wheelchair cannot be walking. However, wheelchair users are specifically enabled to have access to the land under Schedule 2(1)(a). The reference to Section 20(2) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 is a reference to wheelchairs. It is unlikely that an owner or occupier would object to a walker taking photographs (provided they did not infringe privacy), but specific provision could be made to allow the taking of photographs if this was thought to be necessary. In any case, stating that access is on foot would surely not prevent someone taking photographs.
	Including the words "on foot" would make it immediately clear that the right of access did not include access by bicycle, on horseback, or by motor bike, microlight, hang-glider, helicopter or those modern things with wheels on which one stands and whisks along--I am not sure of the terminology for them.
	The amendments may seem a little unnecessary but it would be helpful to be given some clarification on these matters. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: I support my noble friend on these important amendments which open up a completely new concept of access from the one we have been used to in this country. At the moment the public have a right to pass and repass over a highway. That is changed by the Bill which states that any person is entitled "to enter and remain"--that is a completely different concept from that of pass and repass--
	"on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation".
	My noble friend has mentioned a few kinds of recreation that people could undertake on access land. There are a number of definitions in the Bill. In the interests of the future good working of the Bill, I hope that the Minister will reconsider this issue and that it will be more tightly defined; otherwise I can envisage more court cases arising.
	I say to my noble friend Lady Byford that it is not up to us to get the drafting of an amendment correct; our job is to convey the principle and to convince the Government that the principle is correct. It is then up to their "fifth cavalry" to get the drafting right at a later stage.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Bill provides a right of access to land for "the purposes of open-air recreation". This term was not defined in drafting the Bill because we considered that a definition would be undesirably restrictive and unnecessary.
	The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, questioned the establishment of a new principle. To the noble Earl I would say that the Bill follows the pattern set by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. As under that Act, the Bill lists excluded activities rather than included activities. That list has been updated and now rules out activities such as hang-gliding as well as fishing, horse riding and organised games.
	The effect of Amendment No. 67 would be to prevent activities other than walking which we would expect might take place under the new right--for example, bird-watching, picnicking, jogging or taking photographs. Limiting the right to being able to "walk over" the land could cast doubt--

The Earl of Onslow: Surely we jog on our feet. Amendment No. 69 refers to "on foot". We cannot jog on our hands.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I seriously doubt whether there is anything the noble Earl cannot do. I think that that is extremely unlikely. I should expect him to demonstrate his inability to do so!
	Activities such as sitting and reading should be encompassed within the provision. There should be no concerns that the term "remain on" in the Bill could lead to the right being used other than as intended. The phrase in full is,
	"remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation".
	The definition proposed by Amendment No. 67 is narrower than the right we wish to provide and potentially limiting activities such as sitting to eat a sandwich and enjoy the view we believe would be undesirable. The basic right is to use the right of way--it is to pass and re-pass--and incidental activities. I understand that that has recently been extended by the courts. However, the new statutory right is not intended to limit to passing and re-passing. It deliberately makes clear that, for example, picnics will be permitted.
	The noble Baroness accepted that there is a need to include reference not only to wheelchairs but buggies. Amendment No. 69 would clarify the general intention with regard to access on foot. I remind the Committee that we have made clear that it is not a right for cyclists, horse riders or motor vehicles, and these are prevented by the restrictions set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
	Under the Bill as currently drafted we can, if necessary and by regulations, add to the list of activities falling outside the scope of the right. The definition of open-air recreation given in Amendment No. 22 would be likely to be unnecessarily restrictive. It would exclude activities which can properly take place inside or outside. We believe that those excercising the new statutory right should be able to stop, sit and read. Many of those are activities not necessarily carried out in the open air.
	With those explanations, I hope that the Committee will agree that the nature of the right, which is indeed a modest one, is made clear by the expression "open-air recreation" taken together with the restricted activities in Schedule 2. I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response. I was glad that she reminded us that the list that was laid down in 1949 has been updated. As I cast my mind back to 1949, I realised that many of the outdoor recreational activities that people are involved in today would have been unheard of then. The main purpose of my amendments was to define that the principal recreation for which access should be granted was walking on foot. The Minister referred to picnicking, which is allowed, but the lighting of fires and camping are not. I accept that.
	I have heard what the Minister has to say and at this stage I shall not push the amendment any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 23 to 30 not moved.]

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 2, line 21, at end insert (", or
	(b) land which fell within paragraph (a) above on the day which this Act received Royal Assent but which has subsequently ceased to be common land within the meaning of the Commons Registration Act 1965,
	but does not include land which has ceased to be common land under a statutory process of compulsory purchase or exchange.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The purpose of the amendment is to address a perceived gap in the legislation: the threat to registered common land that could be at risk of deregistration. Those who perceive a gap in the Bill might decide that they do not want to have to grant access and might press for deregistration. Although there is not a great deal of new evidence of commons being deregistered, it is a real threat and it is hard to understand why the Government would not want to address it. Given that Parliament created the official registers of common land to ensure that it was safeguarded for the future, it would surely be sensible to include a precaution in the Bill.
	When discussing Amendment No. 6, the Minister said that proposals to amend the legislation on commons were in the pipeline. Our worry is that it might be a very long pipeline. In the meantime, as access comes in, a number of commons could be deregistered and be lost for ever.
	I should like to hear any reasons why the Government might not want to accept the amendment. They might argue that deregistration is only a theoretical risk, because the Commons Registration Act 1965 allows land to be kept on the register of commons even if the commoners' rights have been lost, as long as it is open, uncultivated and unoccupied, which is known legally as "waste land of a manor". However, that protection is quickly lost if the owner of a common ploughs and cultivates it. Even a one-off action could strip the land of its legal status.
	The Government might also argue that it would be wrong to freeze the application of the new access rights to commons registered at Royal Assent, because certain specific areas of land are known to have been mistakenly registered as commons. That argument does not hold water either, because there are no powers to remove such land from the register, so the amendment would have no effect in such cases. In any event, houses and gardens are excepted land under Schedule 1.
	The law allows the compulsory purchase of common land or the provision of exchange land where commons are taken for necessary development. It could be argued that the amendment would neuter such arrangements and thereby work against the public interest, but that is not our intention. We would be happy if the Government wanted to write in a suitable saving.
	In the interests of preserving commons as they were intended to be preserved and not leaving a loophole, I beg to move.

Baroness Fookes: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 152, 154 and 190, which stand in my name. The first two are simply paving amendments. The main one is Amendment No. 190.
	My main interest in the Bill is the future of downlands and heathlands. I do not want to enter an argument over definition. Therefore, for the purposes of this amendment I simply use the words "downland" and "heathland" as they are used in common parlance. Such lands are much under threat. A great deal of them has already been lost and many of the lands that remain are small and fragmentary. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Byford made the point that it may be a good idea to try to exempt such tiny pieces of land so that they are maintained. However, that obviously does not find favour with Ministers and therefore I believe that it is necessary to try to protect such land.
	One would expect a Bill such as this to offer additional safeguards to the precious land that is left. However, I fear that the law of unintended consequences may take over. As drafted, the Bill allows for reviews of the definitive maps which show the open access land to take place at least every 10 years and possibly less than that because regulations could be invoked for a different timescale. In my submission, that will create grave uncertainty for the walkers and ramblers, who may not know at any one time precisely what is or is not included in open access. Clearly it also represents an uncertainty for landowners, who may well be dissuaded from acting in the best interests of the land if they feel that any changes which they make could make their land more likely to be open access land.
	It may be easiest to make clear what I have in mind if I give a case history. I have the permission of the owner/occupier to mention his name and his farm. He is Mr George Atkinson who has 750 acres on the South Downs. On his mixed farm is a very beautiful, rather hidden, steep valley called Hockham Coombe. It is a delight. It is rich in wild flowers and butterflies and is a small, very fragile area. It is overlooked by the South Downs Way and therefore it would be perfectly possible for those who sought to see the rather precious, delicate valley to do so without going down into it. However, the valley bottom has been improved for grazing. Therefore, Mr Atkinson is uncertain as to whether in the future it could be categorised as "open country" and therefore open to access, which could put that rather fragile piece of country very much at risk.
	The farm contains a large field of arable land at the top of the down. It would help the narrow, little valley enormously if the field were allowed to revert to downland. A number of bodies support such a move, including English Nature, the Wildlife Trust, the Countryside Agency and the relevant local authorities. However, Mr Atkinson is adamant that he does not want to make the change if at a later stage it could be redesignated as open access land.
	That leads me to the main amendment in the group. I seek to remove uncertainty so that once the maps have been prepared and set forth in statutory form they should be regarded as permanent and not subject to periodic reviews in the way that the Bill envisages.
	Under my amendment it would be possible to alter the open access in two different sets of circumstances. That could be done, first, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which could remove land from open access for development using the proper statutory controls. Secondly, it would not be possible to create new open access land without the consent of the landowner concerned. That may sound somewhat restrictive but I am sure that there are various ways in which in the future landowners could be persuaded to open up more land for access if they were not forced to do so. First, there is good old good will. When people are not under threat very often they are far more willing to make adjustments than if they are. And of course, there are many ways in which one could alter the balance through, for example, grants conditional upon open access, possibly changes in capital taxation and any other way that one might think of in the future which might persuade landowners, rather than threatening them, to make changes to allow more open access.
	I have given this one case history but it could be repeated all over in areas where there is heathland and downland. It would be a great pity if this Bill, which is intended to help the countryside and to give access, dissuaded landowners from making changes in the management of their land which will be for the benefit of all. Therefore, there will be no incentive to change from arable land on the downs to a more traditional form of downland with that threat of periodic review hanging over them.
	For those reasons, I have tabled these amendments. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Lord Whitty: As regards Amendment No. 31, we recognise that some concerns arise from the potential deregistration of common land. For example, research undertaken by the Countryside Agency shows that over three-quarters of the common land in England--and almost 90 per cent of the land in the south-east--has no rights of common at all or only a single right of common registered over it. In those circumstances, there is clearly a potential threat of deregistration.
	However, even where land is deregistered, about 85 per cent of existing registered common land will still fall to be classified as access land because it falls into the category of mountain, moor, heath or down. Therefore, access would be safeguarded. Much of the rest of it, the other 15 per cent, is likely to be in public or institutional ownership.
	Therefore the problem is smaller than was suggested by the noble Baroness. We are addressing the problem in a different context; namely, through the consultation paper to which I referred earlier--Greater Protection and Better Management of Common Land in England and Wales. That proposes that in future it should not be possible to deregister common land if the right of common had been extinguished. Given the relatively small number of instances which are likely to arise, it is better to consider the matter in the broader context of future management of common land rather than within this Bill. Therefore, I am not persuaded at this point that we should give any commitment to future legislation nor to bring forward any amendments to the Bill.
	As regards the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, although she said that Amendments Nos. 152 and 154 are paving amendments, they raise in themselves a matter of principle in that they would require maps of open country to reflect the open country at the date of Royal Assent, whereas the Bill requires the countryside bodies to map open countryside on the basis of its status at the time the map is surveyed and completed.
	There would be a problem were we to adopt the approach of the noble Baroness. It is not really a practicable proposition to map the land on an historic basis. The countryside bodies which are to do that work over the next two or three years have no way of knowing what precise use was made of the land at the exact point of Royal Assent. Therefore, it would be difficult for them to assess the state of the land as it was. They can only do that at the point at which they survey it. Any formula which attempts to ascertain the nature of the land on an historic basis is subject to all sorts of uncertainties and would probably lead to unfairness as well as impracticality.
	The noble Baroness's key amendment is Amendment No. 190. I am not sure that I can comment on the particular case which she raised. But I do not necessarily accept that a general provision effectively freezing maps of open countryside for the future is the way to address that problem. Clause 10 requires reviews to be undertaken at least every 10 years. The amendment would mean that land could not be removed from maps unless a development had taken place for which planning consent had been given or deemed. At the same time, it would remove the scope for new land to be added to the access maps unless the owner had given his consent.
	However, new open countryside may be created by active management of the land, often with conservation-oriented objectives, and existing open country may be lost through development, improvement, natural changes and so forth. We believe that such changes should, in due course, be reflected in maps of open country and not be frozen at their original point.
	The review will also allow the countryside bodies to include on maps land which was incorrectly omitted when the maps were first issued. We do not think it right for landowners to be able to veto the mapping of such land, any more than they should have a right to veto it when the maps of open countryside are first drawn up.
	We therefore do not think that this is the best way to deal with difficult local situations. Such situations would be best dealt with by local solutions and advice to the countryside agencies reflecting those local concerns. A general freezing does not seem to me to be the solution. I therefore hope that when we come to it, the amendment will not be pressed, and that the noble Baroness will also not pursue her amendment.

Baroness Fookes: I accept what the Minister says. However, I should be happier about withdrawing my amendment later if he could offer me a solution better than the one I proposed, but I did not seem to hear that.

Lord Whitty: If the Countryside Agency proposes changes at a later stage, it will still have to go through the process of consulting local access fora, and therefore all those interested in the situation, such as the noble Baroness described in the South Downs. Many localised issues could then be addressed in that context rather than by a provision which would freeze the totality at a particular point in time.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The Minister's reply that possibly only 15 per cent is at risk, or if we take the institutional ownership, 10 per cent, is not reassuring. A loss of 10 per cent of commons could be worrying. However, I should like to conduct further research between now and Report to see how concentrated that 10 per cent is geographically. If it mostly falls within one area, that would be a serious issue to which I should wish to return. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 2, line 21, at end insert--
	("(3) It shall be the duty of the appropriate countryside body to set out clear definitions of moor, heath and down.").

The Earl of Caithness: I rise to move Amendment No. 33 tabled in my name. Members of the Committee will recall that on Amendments Nos. 16 and 26 the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked about definitions of "downland" but did not give us any. Members of the Committee will be well aware that there are not any in the Bill. This lack of definition of moor, heath and down, and the omission of any burden on any authority to come up with a common definition, are major flaws in this legislation.
	The Bill relies on accurate definitions based on specialist knowledge which can be applied consistently to all parts of the country. As yet, there is no provision for that. From the landowner's point of view, the current provisions in the Bill will cause great uncertainty. From the visitor's point of view, the inevitable wrangling over definitions and appeals will unnecessarily delay their access on to the land. The amendment aims to end uncertainty by giving the responsibility for the definition to a single body and to ensure that the definition used to decide which land is eligible under the provisions of the Bill is common to the whole country.
	I would hope that the body with the responsibility to provide a definition would use the expertise of professionals to decide one. Not every access authority will have access to the necessary specialist skills to define land in a way which is quantifiable and accurate. Left to their own devices, not every authority would produce the same definitions. The Government have recently been dogged with accusations about the health service: that the current system works better for people under some authorities than others. The Bill, as it stands, would create a similar situation. We might see land that would be excluded under some access authorities included in the maps produced by others. The amendment is designed to prevent that. Our earlier discussions reminded me of the consultation paper that the Government issued preceding this Bill. That indicated that the definition of,
	"moor, heath and down",
	was to be classified by reference to vegetation. None of those references is carried forward in the Bill to guide either the countryside bodies or the Secretary of State in handling appeals. Can the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, say why, when it was in the consultation paper, it is not in the Bill?
	There are specific problems in the case of moor, which may not only refer to heather-covered ground, but also in some parts of the country to low-lying marshes. The Oxford English Dictionary, in the second edition, provides several definitions, including,
	"a tract of unenclosed wasteground, usually uncultivated, covered in heather; a heath";
	also,
	"a tract of ground strictly preserved for shooting".
	Another definition is "a marsh". It also offers a specific meaning in Cornwall as,
	"a waste where tin is found".
	In any case, it appears from the original consultation paper--a vegetation-based definition--that downland can be limestone as well as chalk, thus it includes the Mendips, the Cotswolds and the wolds, as well as the downs. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, spoke of that and was disturbed at the width of that definition, although the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, welcomed it. Again, the Oxford English Dictionary offers definitions including,
	"an open expanse of elevated land specifically in the plural; the treeless, undulating chalk uplands of the South and South-East of England serving chiefly for pasturage; or a sandhill".
	Finally--again a point picked up by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe--the term "open country" appears to be a misnomer since there is nothing in the definitions provided which excludes enclosed land. For example, downland could be enclosed and used in supporting an equestrian enterprise but still be within either the dictionary definition of "down" or the definition used in the consultation paper. That may be less relevant to policy makers, appeals and the court; but it clearly does not help the public understand to which land they are being given access and which land is being excluded from the right of access.
	Finally, if vegetation-based definitions are used, it is possible for land to move in and out of the right of access, subject to the procedure for revision of mapping, according to changes in its use over time. I believe that the importance of definitions at this stage strikes at the very heart of the Bill and it is important that we get this right at this stage so we get greater clarity. That is why there should be a duty on the authority to make definitions after consultation. I beg to move.

Viscount Bledisloe: I apologise for coming back to the point of definition, but I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that this is crucial.
	Perhaps I may seek to make the point which I did not succeed in making earlier in relation to the definition of "open country" in Clause 1(2) of the Bill. That says that,
	"open country means land which appears to consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down".
	That is the same as saying that access land includes all land which consists wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down, whether or not it is open. That can be extremely dangerous. I do not believe it is intended, but it is what is said.
	Earlier speakers appear to have considered that the absence of a definition gives the authority a wide discretion as to whether it labels specific land as access land. But that is wrong. The map maker has a duty to include in his map all land which is wholly or predominantly mountain, moor, heath or down, and has no power to include land which is not.
	If there were a challenge, the court would have to decide what was meant by a down. It must either say that the map maker had made a mistake by including something that was not a down or by failing to include something which even though not open was in fact a down. It seems to me that without a definition, and without an overriding provision whether or not something is a down--it does not count as open country unless it is open--there are likely to be serious problems.
	I do not know whether the solution propounded by the noble Earl is ideal but I would like an assurance from the Government that the problem of the definition will be cleared up at the Report stage.

The Earl of Onslow: If, as I suspect, the Government will say that it is not necessary to have such a definition, will the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, give a definition himself?

Lord Whitty: The noble Earl is not going to catch me that way. He will know that current convention is that the words of the Minister, which are always carefully chosen, have almost equal weight in court to what is on the face of the legislation. The area is complex and the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and others indicate that.
	As the noble Earl's amendment suggests, the job of identifying what falls within these categories must rest with the Countryside Agency. It is its responsibility to come forward with a definition and approach which can be seen to be reasonable and against which legal judgments might have to be made in future. The amendment mentions "clear definition" but clearly there is scope for judgment in individual cases. However, the Countryside Agency will be responsible and it and the Countryside Council for Wales are working on draft definitions.
	The National Countryside Access Forum, which represents a wide range of people, including landowners and user groups, has already discussed the paper prepared by the Countryside Agency setting out draft definitions of the categories of open countryside and the agency will consult more widely before it concludes the definitions.
	The initial definitions, contained in the consultation paper to which the noble Earl referred, have been subject to comment and criticism. They are not entirely related to vegetation but there is criticism that they are predominantly so and there is therefore a need for a wider approach.
	As regards coming forward with a definition of "open countryside" which includes enclosed land--the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe--little downland is not enclosed. Most land is enclosed and the only question is of size and degree of enclosure which is irrelevant for the purposes of mapping open countryside. The precise parameters for identifying moor, heath and down require careful consideration. The original drafting proposals would need to be reviewed not only in the light of representations made but also in the light of the pilot mapping exercises which the Countryside Agency is about to undertake. The Bill requires the countryside bodies to determine whether the land is open country by reference to the categories identified in the amendment. As we shall discuss later, the mapping process will provide for extensive consultation and the right of appeal. There is therefore a complex process rather than the simple matter of a definition which then becomes absolute. There are implied requirements on the Countryside Agency not only to act reasonably in relation to clear definitions but also in relation to the process of objection or comment on them. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment as it stands is appropriate but the intention that it should undertake the responsibility already exists.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The Minister said a few moments ago that in England the Countryside Agency was working with the Countryside Council for Wales on the matter of definition. The noble Lord will be aware that the Countryside Council for Wales is responsible to the National Assembly for Wales. I can foresee a situation in which perhaps the National Assembly disagrees with any agreement reached between the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales. Therefore, does the Minister agree that it would be far better to define these matters in statute rather than leave it to these bodies?

The Earl of Onslow: In effect the Minister has told the Committee that an Act of Parliament is to give people the right to roam on land which cannot be defined. The Minister refused to give me a definition of what is in the Bill. If the noble Lord does not know where people will be allowed to go, surely he should find out the Government's intention and return to the House. To pass an Act which says that one can walk on a heath or open land when that is not defined is not good law.

Lord Whitty: The Bill defines a process for arriving at a geographical description and mapping the land to which these rights will apply. It is that process which the Committee is being asked to accept. Part of that process is that in reaching their mapping decisions the countryside agencies have a clearer definition--that is what they are working on currently--than we have provided at present or in the initial consultation paper. However, that is part of the same process. It is not just a question of definition. That definition must then be subject to a process of representation, applications for modification and appeal. Therefore, in all those respects the countryside agencies must operate reasonably. It is not just a question of definition. If one recorded on the face of the Bill solely the question of definition one would restrict that process and thereafter the rights of interested parties to participate effectively in it.
	I do not believe that there is an enormous amount between the objective of the noble Earl's amendment and what is being required of the countryside agencies. However, if it was limited to definition it would cause a problem. As to the possibility of the Countryside Council for Wales arriving at a different definition and approach from those in England, that possibility exists. I said that both bodies were in close communication in drafting those definitions. However, they work to different bodies, which is the nature of devolution. It may be that there are some slight differences but I suspect that they will be largely ironed out in the course of that process as far as concerns definition. However, the Countryside Council for Wales will have to pay attention to different parties from those to whom the Countryside Council in England pays attention.

Viscount Bledisloe: The Minister told the Committee that the Countryside Council for Wales and the Countryside Agency in England were formulating definitions. Does he recognise that unless he accepts an amendment on the lines of that moved by the noble Earl the countryside agencies' definitions will be writ in water? If anyone seeks to challenge them the court will have to decide what a down is. The agency's definition of a down will just be an argument and will be of no avail. It is for the appropriate authority to decide whether a piece of land comes within a definition, but if one puts a word in a statute and says nothing else it is for the court to decide what it means. The Minister is simply inviting every landowner and, contrariwise, every ramblers' association to challenge the map by taking the matter to court and arguing that, although the agency has said that certain land is downland, its definition is not really what "downland" means.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may say that the Minister has twice referred this evening to the pilot studies that are going on. I should be grateful if he would remind the Committee exactly what the pilot studies are, what areas they cover, the timetable they cover and whether in fact they will have finished being pilot studies and have any relevance to the Bill before it is passed. I think it is important that we understand where we are at the moment. The Minister also said in response to my noble friend's amendment that there was not an enormous amount of difference between us. If there is not, and as the amendment seems to be receiving support from around the Chamber, would it not be sensible to accept the amendment?

Lord Whitty: The amendment is incomplete in relation to what the duties of the countryside agencies will be. Not only do they have to, as I say, act reasonably in drawing up the definition, but wherever the definition appears there will always be the possibility of that being challenged. I do not accept the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that whoever draws up the definition--whether it is formally on the face of the Bill, whether there is a responsibility defined on the face of the Bill or whether the agencies themselves draw it up--they can be challenged. No one is restricting that challenge, provided the defence is that they have acted reasonably in drawing up that definition and that the process adopted has itself been reasonable in respect of the individual case.
	The answer to the question about the pilot studies is that they will not be ready in the next few weeks. In fact the contracts are about to be let. There is a pilot mapping exercise in a number of areas. I regret to say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that I do not have the pilot areas for Wales in front of me. In relation to England they are Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex, Lancashire, Cheshire, the South Pennines and the Peak District. Those pilot mapping studies will look at the methodologies for mapping. They should be concluded by early next year. The lessons from them will inform the process after Royal Assent on the statutory mapping areas. They will last less than a year. We shall then inform that process on the basis of those studies. I recognise that that question was raised earlier and apologise for not answering it sooner.

Lord Rotherwick: Is there any way of challenging the definition that the Countryside Agency might come to at a later date? Also, when the Countryside Agency decides what downland is, will that be set in stone? Will no one be able to change or challenge that definition?

Lord Whitty: In any particular case the Countryside Agency's actions are ultimately challengeable in court, as is any agency of the activities of Government. Part of that might either be in the definition itself or the way in which the definition is described. There is a consultation period taking place now with all the bodies involved in the national forum. Therefore, hopefully we can reach a consensus on the basic definitions. The fact that that basic definition is being used would normally be regarded as sufficient by the courts. That is not to say, however, it could not be challenged in the courts. For example, I should think that if the forum comes up with a definition of downland that all the parties to that forum accept, then that is a fairly good definition. That is not something we are going to determine here this evening.

The Earl of Onslow: Should not that be done before you bring in an Act of Parliament rather than after? Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted I was told a million years ago. If you do not know what heath/downland is, you cannot pass an Act giving people access to it. I do not understand why we cannot have a Bill before us which actually gives a proper definition. Otherwise it is a muddle.

Lord Whitty: Most people have a fairly good idea of what we are talking about. The question of fine-point definition will be a matter for the agency, as it is in many other areas of legislation. I think that Members opposite are making a meal of this point for purposes I do not totally understand. I have indicated that I agree with the noble Earl that this should be a central responsibility of the agencies. Those agencies will have to consult all interests involved in drawing up those definitions and implementing them. That is the normal way in which responsibilities of agencies operate under statute. I therefore do not accept that we should have done any more by this point for the Bill to be effective when the agencies have fulfilled their obligations under that provision.

Earl Peel: When earlier we discussed the fast-track approach, the noble Lord robustly defended his position largely, I think, because he wanted to ensure that access areas were up and running as soon as possible. If the noble Lord does not accept the amendment or something similar to it, the possibility of litigation and delay will increase enormously. That will lead only to bad feeling when the provisions of the Bill start to be implemented, which is surely the last thing the Government would want. I should have thought that my noble friend's amendment was totally logical and one that the Government could accept without difficulty. We could then get the thing off to a good start.

Lord Marlesford: It is a basic principle of legislation that the courts have to determine points of which Parliament has not thought in the process of legislating. But when a question is raised during the consideration of legislation it is not good practice for a government to say, "We do not know the answer to that. We must leave it to the courts". That is not the right way to legislate. There was a period during the consideration of Finance Bills when, if difficult questions were asked, Ministers used to say, "We shall have to leave that to the courts". I am glad to say that in recent years that tendency has greatly diminished. It is totally legitimate for Parliament to say to the Government that a word in legislation needs to be defined. If the Countryside Agency or other agencies are to produce a definition in the future, which will not necessarily be the definition the courts will accept, surely the Government can say now that they will expedite the preparation of the definition and come back at Report stage with a definition to put into the Bill.

Lord Whitty: I think that noble Lords are getting the wrong end of the stick. First, broadly speaking, I agree with the objective of the noble Earl's amendment that the countryside agencies should have the responsibility of drawing up a definition as part of the process of defining access land.
	Secondly, those agencies are already engaged in that process. They are working together in the forum, which should maximise the degree of consensus around the initial definition that was proposed in the consultative document published last February. Everyone has been feeding into the process, so the agencies, within the forum, should be able to produce something approaching a consensus on the definitions. That is the process in place. It is robust and should ensure that the final decisions cannot be overturned in the courts.
	We do not intend to leave these matters to the courts; the agencies have a responsibility for taking the lead in drawing up the definitions and they are doing so in a way which ensures that all the major interest groups have an opportunity to contribute. In that way, it is most likely that a consensus will be reached. That seems to me to be the most sensible way to proceed.
	However, it would certainly not be sensible for this Committee to attempt to arrive at a definition during our discussions this evening and then to put that definition on to the face of the Bill. As I have said, the process is in place. I acknowledge that it is reflected in part in the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, but, because the total process is not reflected, I cannot accept his amendment. Having said that, I believe that we share the same objectives; namely, to see the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales carry out this task. For that reason, I hope that the matter can now be put to one side. However, if Members wish to return to the matter on Report, I may be able to consider it a little more.

Lord Rotherwick: I do not wish to be difficult, but this is an important point. I believe that we all agree that it is perfectly acceptable for the Countryside Agency to establish the correct definition. It is probably the best agency to undertake that task. However, the point that I and other noble Lords have been trying to make is that that definition should be brought forward, as a part of the Bill, to be agreed by Parliament. Parliament, rather than the agency, should have the ultimate say on whether the definition is correct. That is the point here.

Lord Whitty: With respect, I do not believe that that is the point lying behind the noble Earl's amendment. His amendment places a responsibility on the agencies and puts that responsibility on to a statutory basis. I would say that I can agree with that, but that particular responsibility is not the totality of their responsibilities as regards the drawing up of the final boundaries of the various different kinds of land.
	As I have said, we can consider further whether there is an appropriate way in which that process can be put into the Bill in more detail than at present, but I certainly would not move as far as the noble Lord has suggested--namely, to put the full and fine detail of the definition on to the face of the Bill. That would not be helpful or in line with the manner in which such matters are approached in other legislation.

The Earl of Caithness: I thank the Minister for many of his remarks. It is obvious that we are now very close in how we are considering this matter. Perhaps I may ask him two further questions. First, does the Minister think that it is important to write on the face of the Bill that this is the duty of the appropriate body? Secondly, if he does think that, will he agree to bring forward at a later stage an amendment that will cover the point he seeks to settle, as well as my intentions--with which he agrees? I can only reiterate that we now have found common ground between us here.
	The Minister can call upon his experts to draft the amendment to cover the specific points. I shall be happy if he can bring forward such an amendment because I am firm in my belief that it is important to put this on to the face of the Bill. If the Minister agrees, will he agree to bring forward his own amendment?

Lord Whitty: Hitherto I have not been convinced that we need an amendment to cover what appears to me to be the obvious responsibility of the agencies in this area. However, in view of the anxieties that have been expressed over the past 31 minutes on the issue, I shall have to reconsider that. I cannot give an absolute assurance that I shall come forward with an amendment, but no doubt, in one form or another, we shall consider this issue again on Report.

The Earl of Caithness: In view of that reassurance, I think it would be churlish of me now to divide the Committee. I had intended to do so, but, given the reassurance that the noble Lord will think again on the matter, I believe that it is only right to allow him to do so. I hope that he will come forward with an amendment, which I believe will find support from all around the House--including support from noble Lords sitting on the Benches behind him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Excepted land for purposes of Part I]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 48, line 5, at end insert--
	(". Land used for gallops or other exercise grounds for racehorses, during recognised restricted times.").

Baroness Byford: I wish to move the amendment standing in my name. It seeks to enable those training racehorses to utilise gallops and exercise grounds, but recognises that that use may be restricted to particular times. I understand that the Minister has indicated that we may have a certain amount of common ground here, especially as regards an amendment to be moved in due course by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. However, it is important that people who use the facility of free access know that when they are on those grounds they are safe and secure, a point raised earlier. Amendment No. 34 seeks to insert:
	"Land used for gallops or other exercise grounds for racehorses during recognised restricted times".
	Perhaps I may speak briefly to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. Both amendments concern the issue of safety--not only the safety of an individual who may wander across exercise grounds not knowing that a horse may be galloping down very shortly, but those of us who are used to riding know very well that any sudden movement can scare or startle horses. So it is not just an issue of the safety of the walker--although that is my main concern--but also the safety of horses in training and their riders.
	At the moment, both Epsom Downs and Newmarket practise restricted timings. We urge the Government to consider extending such a provision to other areas known as "gallops". The Government have given this matter due consideration so I shall not labour the point further. My amendment seeks to facilitate the gallops taking place. Most take place in the morning but in some areas they take place at different times. Presumably the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will speak specifically to that matter. My amendment seeks to ensure the safety of the general public, of the horses and of those riding and exercising them. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: I support the amendment. I live only a few miles from Newmarket and I am very familiar with the training gallops there. They have been well established for centuries. It would be a serious interference with the training of racehorses if there were to be the interruption of people with a right to roam. It would not only interfere with the training of racehorses in a serious way but could sometimes endanger human life. An exception needs to be made in the way suggested by my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Donoughue: In speaking to Amendment No. 56A, which stands in my name, I wish to declare an interest as a part-owner of a racehorse exercising regularly, beautifully, on a gallop in west Northamptonshire and also as a member of the Ramblers' Association. So I am conscious of both sides.
	The Minister said in opening and indicated in a letter he kindly passed to me that he accepts the basic arguments--not necessarily all the arguments--that have been put forward and that he proposes to bring forward a government amendment which will exempt gallops. On behalf of my colleagues who have supported my amendment, I welcome that and thank him for it. I do not therefore propose to detain the Committee with the full battery of overwhelming arguments I spent much of yesterday preparing, but I shall briefly summarise them in case we have to return to this battle at Report stage.
	The basic case, so well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is one of risk--risk to horses, to riders and to ramblers. Thoroughbreds are very large, very fast and often very nervous. They sometimes emerge in the morning fog travelling at about 30 mph. The risk of accidents, indeed death, is very high. It is higher than that on a golf course, which is accepted in the Bill, when the only risk is to the recipient of the small, if painful, ball, whereas the risk with horses is to several people. A very valuable horse is involved in each case, and possibly a string of horses. From the beginning it has been clear that gallops must be exempted. I am pleased that the Minister accepts that.
	Several drafting issues have arisen. There is the question of the definition of a gallop, which I was early officially informed did not have a legislative pedigree. It has a good literary pedigree. It appears in late Victorian literature; it was in The Times 80 years ago, and I have found it in one Act of Parliament, so I am sure that we shall be able to resolve the point.
	I accept that designating gallops is serious issue. We do not want to be in a position where individuals can self-designate a gallop, a piece of land on which they might ride once a month, as exempt. One solution that I have indicated in the drafting of my amendment is to make use of the Jockey Club list, where trainers and permit trainers indicate gallops when registering.
	The Government might wish to interpolate a statutory body such as the Countryside Agency. That ought to be acceptable, provided it is clear that the agency would normally accept the advice of the Jockey Club on this matter.
	The issue of times, raised by the noble Baroness, worries me a little. I am aware that there are certain long-established gallops which have access at some times and not at others. I should be slightly concerned if that applied everywhere. It works where everyone knows the gallop, but in certain less well-known gallops it might present difficulties. We do not, for instance, want a rambler with children going onto a gallop at one minute to four because the exemption starts at four and the trainer with 30 horses coming up at one minute past four. It is an issue that we can discuss, and to which I am sure we shall find a solution. Given the Minister's indication of his very helpful approach, it is not my intention to speak further or to press the amendment at this stage. If acceptable to the Committee, I suggest that we allow the Minister to elaborate on what he has in mind. Then, we shall be in a position before Report stage to consult on it and hold discussions and, it is to be hoped, achieve a solution that is satisfactory to the needs of safety in racing and race training, which must be the ultimate priority.

Lord Whitty: In view of my noble friend's invitation, without wishing to curtail further debate it may be helpful if I indicate and confirm most of what the noble Lord said about the Government's intention. We recognise this as a serious problem that has to be addressed. We therefore have in mind the introduction of an amendment that would exempt the right of access to land used for the training of race horses. However, we are not absolutely certain as to the exact formulation involved. As my noble friend indicated, we envisaged that the right of access would possibly be constrained by time: by saying that in general it would apply between the hours of sunrise and midday. But there are some gallops where that would not apply. A separate provision would be required in order to agree other times in appropriate circumstances. Moreover, as my noble friend said, there is also the difficulty of putting on the statute book the precise gallops to which this would apply. The Jockey Club could play an extremely helpful role here as regards exactly how we express that provision. Indeed, we may need to engage in consultation with noble Lords who are interested in this area, as well as with the organisations concerned, before we finally put forward an amendment.
	I certainly intend to meet all the anxieties expressed by my noble friend and the noble Baroness. Clearly, there is a safety issue involved that we must address. I hope that the Committee will accept our determination to do so in the best way possible.

Lord Burnham: Before the noble Lord sits down, I am sure that those who are concerned about the matter will be deeply grateful for what he has just said about this problem. In many cases it has been suggested that after midday or one o'clock it would be perfectly all right for people to roam on the gallops. However, when he is considering the matter, I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind the serious danger of broken glass and discarded tins, which might well be left on the gallops by ramblers. I do so because of the easy way that such litter could cause damage to horse flesh amounting to many tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Baroness Byford: I think it falls to me to beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 48, line 5, at end insert--
	(". Any developed land.").

Lord Glentoran: This amendment is the first in a large and somewhat complex group relating to Schedule 1. I am not quite sure why, but a couple of later amendments could well have also been included in the grouping; namely, Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. However, perhaps we had better leave them where they are so as to avoid any further confusion.
	In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 37, 41 to 48, 54 and 55, which is tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as well as to Amendments Nos. 56, 58 to 60 and 63 to 65. Amendment No. 51 is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. These amendments are designed to make up serious deficiencies in the schedule relating to excepted land; namely, land excluded from the definition of "access land" and, consequently, not subject to the right of access introduced by the Bill.
	The large number of amendments listed in this grouping is a sad reflection of the inadequate state in which the Bill has come to this place. The list of excepted land in Schedule 1 barely scratches the surface as regards the need for careful consideration of the impact of the right of access and of those lands which have to be excluded from that right either for the safety of the public or out of consideration for the interests of the owner and other users. We have just had a classic example of that with regard to the gallops.
	There are a number of other examples, such as farming, including the proposal to extend the period of time since the land was ploughed or drilled from 12 months to five years. There is also the matter of curtilage. For safety and security we propose that no land within 50 metres of a dwelling-house should be access land. Public safety points are also included, as is the protection of the environment as well as other commercial concerns.
	Amendment No. 37, which relates to land comprising a highway, is a probing amendment on the relationship between highways and access land. Highways provide a right of way rather than a right to open-air recreation. If access land includes highways, there are potential problems. Which legal regime applies, or do both? Could a person exercising access rights be guilty of obstructing the highway? Can people picnic on roads? Can dog-walkers use footpaths across access land without having their dogs on leads? Would a person using a highway be subject to by-laws under Clause 17?
	Amendment No. 41 reads:
	"Page 48, line 5, at end insert--
	(". Land within 50 metres of a dwelling-house.")"
	Personal security and privacy can be compromised if people are allowed to wander by homes. The present exceptions for buildings and their curtilage and for gardens are not sufficient. The curtilage is an area of land that relates to a building--commonly, the garden of a house. Although a field would not usually be in the curtilage of a house, it may be next to or immediately behind the walls of a cottage. Keepers' cottages or agricultural workers' houses are often found in open country. The reasons of privacy and security which lead to the present exceptions should be applied in those circumstances.
	Amendment No. 42 reads:
	"Page 48, line 5, at end insert--
	(". Land currently used, or used since 1850, as a cemetery or burial ground.")
	We suggest that it is inappropriate for such land to be used for open-air recreation. Admission to cemeteries should be a matter for the keepers of those cemeteries.
	Amendment No. 43 reads:
	"Page 48, line 5, at end insert--
	(". Land used for the purpose of a sports pitch or an athletics track.")"
	The Bill excepts golf courses and racecourses. A similar exception should be made for other sporting facilities. Access rights may interfere with sporting events or training, cause damage to pitch or track surfaces or endanger either athletes or the general public. As the test applied is whether land is "wholly or predominantly" open country, pitches and athletics tracks may be included. Commons are used for cricket matches and other games.
	Amendment No. 44 reads:
	"Page 48, line 5, at end insert--
	(". Land being used for the purposes of a film or television studio.")"
	Film and television studios often require large open areas. I refer, for example, to the new film studios at Leavesden airfield in Hertfordshire. Filming and preparations would be disturbed by a right of access over that site. Such access might also be dangerous.
	I shall not go through the whole list. The examples that I have mentioned are pertinent. I believe that all the amendments that I propose are valid and serious and seek to respect the privacy, security or safety of those concerned. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: I support in particular my noble friend's Amendment No. 41 which raises an extremely fundamental issue; namely, the whole question of privacy and security. The provisions will undoubtedly pose problems in certain cases for individuals living in remote rural areas.
	A number of dwelling-houses will be situated close to, if not on the edge of, the new access areas. It is important for the Government to consider this problem seriously. I have no intention of reminding the Committee of the difficulties posed by increased crime in rural areas and of trying to find a policeman to deal with such problems. I am sorry to say that one is extremely unlikely to find one.
	I believe that as the access provisions in the Bill begin to bite, a number of additional footpaths will be created on access areas. I suggest that almost inevitably footpaths will develop along the edge of access areas. As it is trodden down and more and more people use it, people living in houses next to the newly created footpath could find that they have an unexpected non-registered footpath. That could lead to difficulties such as a decrease in the value of the house. Perhaps more importantly, it could lead to increased crime.
	I hope that the Minister will give the problem serious consideration. With great respect to my noble friend, I do not suggest that it is necessarily the right amendment. We need seriously to consider security and access and dwellinghouses on the edge of access areas. The amendment gives us the opportunity to hear what the Government have to say on this important issue.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Amendment No. 55 is a probing amendment to discover whether the wording under "Excepted Land" in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 is adequate. There appears to be no legal definition of "getting of minerals". The commonly used phrase is the winning and working of minerals and disposal of mineral waste. It is a specific issue in, for example, china clay areas. Many of the workings and spoil heaps will abut open land. The large areas often required for the disposal of mineral waste need to be taken into account. They are not mentioned in the Bill. The wording of the amendment makes it clear to members of the public that there is no access to land for disposal or the area from which the mineral is dug. I welcome the Minister's clarification. I shall then decide what to do.

Lord Jopling: I note that the Government decided that it would be sensible to make provision within the Bill to exempt land from open access where it is used for gallops and race horse training.
	Another pursuit occurs on open land at certain times of the year which could be as potentially dangerous to an individual roaming about as a string of race horses thundering down upon him. When I represented in another place part of the Lake District, I well recall that in winters with a degree of snow local people often set up ski runs in conjunction with a road where they could be given a lift back to the top of the hill. I shall not do so, but I could quote examples where temporary ski lifts operated by tractors were erected. The Committee will be aware of people in some continental ski resorts being hit and seriously injured by people skiing down the mountain or hill.
	I have seen a lot of inexpert skiers in my old constituency going down hills at high speed. That is no place for people to be roaming around. I wonder whether the Minister would consider the issue before Report stage and be kind enough to comment today on whether it might be wise to add a provision to exempt from open access land that was used as a ski run when snow was lying on the ground. I can envisage people using the free access granted by the Bill to wander about, probably to watch others indulging in winter sports of one form or another. That would be very dangerous. It would be wise to make an exemption for those relatively rare circumstances.

Viscount Bledisloe: Once again, I find the grouping very unsatisfactory. We have no fewer than 20 amendments designed to cover a wide range of subjects. They have no common theme except that they are all exclusions from the definition of access land. Even the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, when proposing them, felt unable to give a justification for each of them. I hope that the Minister will be braver and tell us about them individually, explaining whether each one is acceptable. I venture to hope that on future days on the Bill we shall not be confronted with a hotch-potch of 20 things that have nothing in common.
	In such circumstances, one inevitably has to pick. I join the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in drawing attention to Amendment No. 41. Let us consider the example of the house of a shepherd, a keeper or somebody who likes living away from things, which is situated up on open land or moorland. There will obviously be some sort of track leading towards it, which will be a natural route for walkers. It is very likely that the fence round such a house will be only a few metres from the building on one or more sides. The house may have a garden in front or behind, but it will not have 50 metres of garden all round it. The wife of the shepherd in question may find herself alone at home--the problem could even arise at night if the Government persist in their ill-conceived idea of allowing access at night. Allowing people to walk past the house at night, five or 10 metres from the window, is an intolerable burden which would be very frightening and highly undesirable. I sincerely hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment as they give us a lucid explanation of the other 19.

Lord Whitty: On this occasion I do not agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. The amendments have a common theme. As he identified, they would all restrict the areas to which access rights would be granted. My starting point is to oppose all of them. Some of them may have more reasonable arguments behind them, but taking all of them together would restrict the areas to which access was granted. I suspect that that is the motivation behind many of them.
	I am afraid that I am going to take them one by one--sorry about that. Amendment No. 35 would except "any developed land". That is unnecessary. Paragraph 2 of the schedule already excepts any land,
	"covered by buildings or the curtilage of such land".
	The definition of "building" in paragraph 11 is very wide.
	However, the definition of "development" in the Town and Country Planning Act is wider still and includes issues such as the making of any material change in the use of a building or other land. If the amendment followed that definition it would mean that the public could be denied access simply because of a change of use for which planning permission had been given. I do not believe that that was the intention but it would be the effect. I believe that the real safeguard in this area is that buildings are already covered.
	Amendment No. 37 would except land comprising a highway. However, the public already have rights of passage on foot on all public highways except motorways, which I do not suppose feature too often on access land. Those rights are not affected by Part I of the Bill. Therefore, it would be somewhat nonsensical to except highways.
	I accept that real anxiety about buildings exists in relation to Amendment No. 41, as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. However, Schedule 1 already excepts buildings and their curtilage. It also excepts gardens and parkland, much of which will be substantially larger than the 50-metre requirement in the amendment. An exclusion zone based on 50 metres would be arbitrary and effectively would mean that in many locations the public could not pass that building. Therefore, the essential means of access to open country would be excluded by having a 50-metre umbra around any building which itself was exempted by the buildings requirement. Therefore, I believe that such an exclusion is excessive. The curtilage requirements and those which relate to gardens will protect substantially isolated dwellings from any right of access to come close to that house.
	Amendments Nos. 43, 43, 45, 46 and 63 exempt a number of areas such as burial grounds, sports pitches, waste processing sites and quarries which are being backfilled. Such instances would arise relatively seldom on access land. However, if they do occur--and I make this point in relation to many of the amendments--there is a process for dealing with them: that is, by application to the Countryside Agency for restrictions or closures, either temporary or permanent. I believe that that, rather than a blanket exclusion on the face of the Bill, should apply in relation to most of the items covered by those amendments.
	I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that if do-it-yourself ski runs were being erected all over his former constituency, I believe that, likewise, application for restriction could be made to the Countryside Agency either on specific occasions or when snow was falling. Therefore, I believe that that item is covered without providing a blanket exemption which addresses all those issues.
	Amendment No. 55 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, refers to mineral works. Again, such land is unlikely to be mapped on open country. However, the noble Baroness raised a specific point in relation to the use of the terminology "winning and working". That has been used in previous legislation and may be more appropriate than the current wording. Perhaps I may take away that matter to consider the implications. It may be sensible to use the noble Baroness's suggested wording.
	Amendment No. 44 refers to TV and film studios. By and large, TV and film studios qualify as buildings. I believe that we are pushing matters somewhat here. Walkers must not interfere with the lawful activities of others. Therefore, if a location shoot is taking place lawfully on land, walkers must not interfere with it. Therefore, I believe that even temporary filming is covered. Of course, the landlord can again either use his discretion within the 28 days or apply for an exemption in the normal way.
	Amendment No. 47 relates to educational and medical institutions. Again, most of those are buildings and we believe that such land will largely be covered by the legislation relating to parks and gardens. I do not believe that there are many other items which do not fall under that specification.
	Amendment No. 48 was dealt with in part at an earlier stage. It excepts streams and other watercourses. Again, use of those streams and watercourses for activities in the water is not covered by the access rights in any event. But to except land because there was a stream across it would seriously confine access to other bits of land.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, has tabled Amendment No. 51, although I do not believe that he spoke to it. That relates to small areas of woodland. It will be a matter of discretion for the countryside bodies whether they exclude such pockets of woodland. For example, small semi-natural clusters of oak or rowan can be found on some areas of high moor. They are usually unfenced and it would be illogical to exclude them from open country. On the other hand, a fenced forestry plantation would be most unlikely to be seen as part of open countryside. Therefore, some discretion must be left to the countryside agencies in defining those areas which would be excepted.
	In a sense, it also addresses the threshold between heath and woodland, but where there is an enclosure it would seem that quite frequently there would be an exclusion.
	Amendment No. 54 deals with some obtuse point about plural or singular. That makes no significant difference to the approach. A distinction is sought to be made between the curtilage of a building and the curtilage of land covered by a building. Our advice is that there is practically no difference between those two expressions and that in this case at least, if not everywhere, the Bill appears to be grammatically correct. So we do not support the effect of the second part of Amendment No. 54 nor Amendment No. 60 which deals with the same point.
	We then go on to heliports. An aerodrome is included in exceptions. Heliports are subsumed within aerodromes, I am reliably informed. Therefore, that is covered already.
	Amendment No. 59 would remove the restriction that the exception of land under paragraph 7 must not fall within any of the preceding paragraphs. Again, Amendment No. 59 does not seem to have any practical effect since it would simply allow land to be excepted both under paragraph 7 and under any of the other paragraphs. Therefore, that is not needed.
	As regards Amendment No. 64, paragraph 12 provides that land cannot be treated as excepted land simply by undertaking on it one of the activities listed in the schedule if planning consent should have been obtained but has not been obtained. If we removed paragraph 12(1), as is proposed by the amendment, individuals' rights of access would be reduced because of the unlawful behaviour of others in not obtaining planning permission. On the face of it, that seems to be inequitable and I should not be prepared to accept that amendment.
	Finally, the Committee may be grateful to hear, Amendment No. 65 would clarify that access would not be excluded from land covered by electricity transmission lines. We do not believe that electricity transmission lines or telephone wires "cover" the land as such and therefore, the amendment is not needed.
	All the amendments seek to extend the area of land excepted and therefore to restrict the right of access. In all cases, I do not believe that they are wholly justified, although some of the anxieties behind the amendments are real. At this stage, I am not prepared to accept any of the amendments. I have said that I will look again at the wording of one or two of the amendments. But in general, I ask Members of the Committee not to pursue the amendments.

Lord Jopling: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will explain in a little more detail what is meant on the face of the Bill by "aerodrome". We all understand what is meant when one is talking about a military airfield as we do in relation to a civil aviation airfield for use by chartered or scheduled flights.
	But when the Minister was dealing with that matter in his remarks, my mind went to an example of a place I know well which is the Yorkshire Gliding Club which is situated, and has been to my certain knowledge for 60 or 70 years, on the top of Sutton Bank between Thirsk and Helmsley. A great deal of gliding takes place there. If one drives up the road at Sutton Bank, quite often one can see eight or 10 gliders in the sky. They are towed off by a light, single-engined aircraft which, as far as I know, is kept on the site. A public footpath goes round the edge of the place where the gliders and aircraft take off.
	I suspect that under the terms of the Bill that land would be open for public access. I wonder whether the Minister could explain in detail what is meant by "aerodrome". Does it include any place which is used particularly for gliding where maybe only one aircraft is permanently based, or even sometimes temporarily based, that comes in and tows gliders off and where gliders are landing and taking off in large numbers, particularly at weekends? It really would be crazy if people were allowed to roam over such a place. I realise that the Minister may not be able to give me a precise answer now. However, I believe the point is worth considering. A site such as that on the top of Sutton Bank should come within the definition of an aerodrome, and I believe we should ensure that it does.

Lord Rotherwick: Can the Minister clarify whether that would include farm strips? There are a number where planes take off. What does the Minister understand by the definition of an unlicensed aerodrome, such as an airstrip or a glider site? Would it just be the runway or would it be further out at either end of the runway, in other words, 50 yards either side? How close could people come? These questions may seem to be unimportant. However, if somebody was flying a kite or came too close, they could well be injured or cause an accident.

Lord Jopling: Following my noble friend's comments, perhaps I may add that the gliding site to which I referred has no runway. The aircraft and the gliders take off and land on grass.

Lord Whitty: The term "aerodrome" is widely used in civil aviation legislation. The normal definition is in the 1982 Act. I shall refer to farm sites in a moment, but all issues which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, raised, would be covered by it. It refers to any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used to afford facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft and includes any area or space designed, equipped or set apart to afford facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft.
	Before the noble Lord inquires what is meant by an aircraft, that is helpfully covered, as he may know, in the Air Force Act 1955. It covers all machines for flying, whether by mechanical means or not, which must include gliders. It also includes balloons. I believe that any space which gets you in the air and down again is covered by the exception of aerodromes. I suspect that farm sites would be excluded anyway as part of the enclosed farmland. It may be that the odd individual helicopter pad which is used once every year at Christmas might not fall within that definition. However, I suspect that that is in somebody's garden or park and therefore would be excluded that way. I do not believe that this is a serious problem in so far as it is not already provided for in the Bill.

Earl Peel: The Minister has already given me his comments on Amendment No. 51 tabled in my name, so I shall not move that amendment. Perhaps I may return to a comment made by the Minister when he summarised the list of amendments. He said that the one thing they had in common was that they were designed to restrict more access. That implied to me that that was the sole reason why the amendments were tabled. That simply is not the case.
	The Minister's response to Amendment No. 41 and the question of security was almost cavalier. But this is an extremely serious problem. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out, some people's houses will back on to the access areas. They will feel threatened and feel that their lives are being undermined by this legislation.
	I accept that Amendment No. 34 is not necessarily the right way to deal with the problem, but I hope that the Government will look at this whole question more seriously. I have no doubt that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment, but I hope that we can come back to this matter at a later stage. The whole question of security is extremely important and the Government have not considered it to be so in any way, shape or form.

Lord Whitty: I do not say that it was the sole motivation for introducing these amendments. But all these amendments have the same effect and, taken in combination, they would provide a substantial restriction on the right of access. Therefore in part I question the motivation for the tabling of some of them.
	I indicated specifically in relation to Amendment No. 34 that anxieties exist in relation to security and possible criminal damage from the extension of access in areas close to buildings and particularly in relation to dwellings. But we must be sensible about this. The 50-metre exclusion zone advocated by the noble Earl will give people no more comfort than that already provided in the Act in relation to curtilege, gardens and parks, all of which are already excluded.
	Also, we must recognise that almost everybody lives within 50 metres of a right of way, usually a pavement, both in isolated and urban areas, where I suspect the likelihood of criminal attack is higher than in the country areas. We should not make too much of this. Nevertheless, I accept that anxiety exists. I believe that the provisions of the Bill already address some of that anxiety. So let us not exaggerate it and say that it justifies a serious incursion into the right of access that the Bill will provide.

Earl Peel: What concerns me, and this point has been touched on on numerous occasions, is that the Government are saying that they perceive that there may be a problem, but that they will leave it up to the Countryside Agency to interpret it. That is not good enough. I hope that the Government will give us a firm commitment as to how they will deal with the problem. Simply leaving it up to their agency is not the right way forward.

Lord Glentoran: I do not accept most of what the Minister said. This group of amendments would not lead to a serious reduction in access in the total scale of things. The reasons behind the tabling of the amendments were serious and sensible. To have old or active cemeteries as access land is crazy. The amendments will not provide a serious incursion into the access situation by seeking to protect sports fields and sports grounds on a large scale. The various other parts of the amendments involve people's safety or, on occasion, give advice to the Government on perhaps a legally better way of wording the schedule. I assure the Minister that the amendments are serious. If we took the land covered by them as a percentage of the total land to which access would become available, it would not be a serious restriction.
	However, one or two points are particularly serious; that is, the points relating to the glider, the helicopter and the aeroplane situation and to people's privacy. Amendment No. 41 addresses an extremely serious issue. Many people throughout the country who live in remote places will feel seriously vulnerable, particularly where their home suddenly becomes a right of way. I believe that if the Minister's garden, a peaceful corner which he had had for many years, were made into a right of way, or something close to it, he would be unhappy. I shall return to the privacy and security of country people's cottages and houses at the next stage.
	I ask the Government to take the amendments seriously and to come forward with better suggestions. I shall wait until Report stage, because we take seriously the privacy issue dealt with in Amendment No. 41. I hope that in his turn the Minister will be good enough to take me seriously and will come forward with an amendment at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Page 48, line 5, at end insert--
	(". Land in Wales known as coed cae or ffryd land.").

Baroness Byford: I hope that the next set of amendments I propose will not fall into the category of those which the Government believe to be unnecessary. If they do, it only reinforces what the general public are beginning to believe about the Government; that they do not understand the countryside and nor do they want to. Therefore, although the hour is late, I hope that the Minister will take them seriously.
	Amendment No. 36 refers to land in Wales known as coed cae or ffryd land. I hope that my pronunciation is near the mark. Last weekend I was speaking in the furthest corner of West Wales, five miles from Fishguard, so I should have had a chance to practice. The amendment was raised at Second Reading in another place (col. 783) by Richard Livsey, Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnorshire. In parts of Wales, there is land between open hills and the enclosed land which in South Wales is known as coed cae and in North Wales as ffryd land. Try saying it twice--that really is a risk! Usually lambs are put there in the spring before going up on the hills. Following representation by commoners, the designation of the pilot map in the upper Swansea valley was amended to exclude that land. That land should be excepted.
	Amendment No. 38 relates to a serious aspect of farming land; that which is subject to the set-aside scheme. I am sure that the Minister will have been briefed that land can be set aside for more than one year, which is relevant here.
	Amendment No. 49 provides that,
	"Grassland which at any time is subjected to the normal processes of husbandry",
	should also be excepted. That is important for the same reason. As regards farmers and land managers, grassland is not used only for grazing animals but hay and silage is taken from it. Therefore, it is an important part of the process.
	Amendment No. 50 proposes the removal of the time limit of "twelve months" and the insertion of "five years". The reason for that is that "cultivated land" should be broadened to exceed the current limitation of 12 months. The Government have amended the original Bill to seek to define the term "cultivated land", for which we are grateful. The result is a definition which excepts only land that has been cultivated within the previous 12 months. But as Members sitting behind me and, I suspect, on Benches opposite will know, cultivated land rotates, which is why we propose five years.
	However, intensely managed grassland which is improved or semi-improved by being cultivated and re-seeded on a regular basis every few years, but not necessarily every year, would not be excepted land as a result of this definition. Many livestock systems are subject to three or even five-year leys. Newly-sown grass crops do not generally reach peak yields until the third year. The Government must provide clear assurances that any improved grassland, whether in improved permanent pasture or short-term leys, will not be mapped as access land. To extend the definition of cultivated land to include longer leys managed over rotations of up to five years will assist, and this amendment aims to achieve that.
	In their original consultation paper the Government stated that the new right would not extend to land used for agriculture other than extensive grazing. However, there is no mention of livestock in relation to any types of land affected by the Bill or excepted from it under Schedule 1. The Government appear to have ignored the precedent of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 under which excepted land includes agricultural land other than such land which is agricultural land by reason only that it affords rough grazing for livestock. Will the Government consider building that helpful precedent into the current Bill? I beg to move.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I support my noble friend's amendment. It is clear from paragraph 1 of the schedule, which refers to,
	"Land on which the soil is being, or has at any time within the previous twelve months been, disturbed by any ploughing",
	that the provision is concerned only with arable crops and does not take into account grassland. Grassland is the most important land under consideration in this amendment. Presumably, most of the land that is subject to access arrangements will be hill land where farmers have reclaimed grassland at great expense and hardship. That land, which is probably permanent pasture, is cultivated land within the meaning of the schedule but is not included in the schedule. My noble friend's amendments will cover it. I believe that the period should be longer than 12 months--even longer than five years. The schedule should include permanent grassland. Hill land is usually cultivated permanent grassland. It would be a serious disservice to the farming community at this very difficult time if its land was part of the access arrangements and subject to the right to roam.
	I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I understand that in the other place the Minister said that there was an intention to include land used for hay and silage-making, but that is still not covered in the Bill as it now stands. Perhaps we may have some reassurance that that matter will be covered.

Baroness Byford: I apologise for not having spoken earlier to Amendment No. 52 which is part of the same group. Amendment No. 52 deals with the particular point just mentioned by my noble friend. It is concerned with,
	"Grassland which is improved or semi-improved including grassland used to produce hay, haylage or silage, or grassland used for the intensive grazing of livestock".
	It is vital to livestock management that sufficient high quality or high-yielding grass crops are grown in order to make a livestock enterprise profitable. This cannot be readily accomplished if the land in question is subject to high levels of access. The definition of cultivated land is insufficient and does not fully take into consideration improved or semi-improved grassland. It is vital to include as excepted land any land which is improved or semi-improved grassland. As my noble friend said, the Minister in another place said as much at Report stage at col. 809. This assurance should be written into the Bill. The Bill must make it clear that only "mountain, moor, heath and down" will be mapped as access land, not improved or semi-improved grassland, whether used for grazing or for the production of fodder crops. On that aspect, I would also draw the Minister's attention to the fact that if it is not excluded the risk is run that dog-fouling will occur, which is something that is neither acceptable nor desirable when fodder crops, hay and silage, are being taken.
	The Minister stated in Standing Committee B on 6th April 2000 (at col. 170) that he did not expect rotation leys to be mapped as open country. He has also indicated that land which has been improved in some way, or land which is used more intensively than rough grazing, should not be mapped as open country. Intensive or semi-intensive grasslands are also not expected to be mapped as mountain, moor, heath or down. Rather than to rely on the simple or various assurances, the Government should amend the Bill to improve the clarity for the Countryside Agency and the CCW in setting about their mapping task and ensuring clarity for owners and users alike. I apologise for not speaking to that amendment before.

Lord Rotherwick: I should like to support my noble friend Lady Byford on Amendments Nos. 49 and 52. I think that the Minister would be anxious to learn that on the grounds of safety there are concerns. These grasslands use husbandry techniques which include fertiliser and herbicide sprays. It is not appropriate for dogs or humans to go on those grounds after these techniques have been used. There is no way of knowing within an hour or so that those techniques have been used. Not only will certain fertiliser spays burn the feet of dogs, but it would give rise to problems for a farmer if, when conducting such an operation on his field, he were to find people walking across it being intoxicated perhaps with the sprays. It is very difficult for a farmer of limited means on a small farm if rubbish is left by walkers. Only this weekend I picked up off footpaths two or three cans that were certainly not there last week. Such cans cause considerable damage to silage machinery.
	I also have the same concerns over grassland which should be down for one year or five years. It could be said that farmers should perhaps go to short-term leys rather than long-term leys in order to keep those lands from being excluded lands. If that were the case, it would deny the wildlife considerable benefit from the longer leys.

Lord Hardy of Wath: I have a certain amount of sympathy with some of the arguments advanced by noble Lords opposite. But for a long time some of us have argued that we could achieve the same benefit in the hill and rural areas of parts of these islands if agricultural support was reasonably generous but based on the principle of acreage rather than headage, because in some areas there is over-production as farmers try to maintain living standards and produce more animals for meat than can be sold. In order to sustain life in areas like that there is no point in over-production. There is a point in keeping farmers there. It may be that the economy of those particular areas would benefit if rather less grass was produced and there was rather more grazing to enable the character of the area to be retained, thus avoiding all the disadvantages of over-production, while at the same time providing the income which is necessary to retain the rural population.

Lord Jopling: The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said that he prefers rough grazing to modern grassland managed crops. I have to say to him respectfully, because he knows a great deal about country matters, that in the present economic circumstances surrounding agriculture in the uplands what he is suggesting is a formula for having unfarmed land and land going to scrub. I am sure that he does not want that very unattractive prospect.
	I support my noble friend Lady Byford, particularly on Amendment No. 50. I say as a former student of the great grassland improver, Professor Martin Jones, who did so much of his work at Aberystwyth and at Newcastle, where he taught me, that I could imagine him turning in his grave at the thought that there should be provisions in a Bill giving the green light to one year leys in our uplands rather than leys for three, five or even more years. I hesitate to give the Committee a lecture on agricultural practices, but I shall do so. A single year ley is used only in arable areas where corn crops are undersown with a one-year ley to grow grass and clovers in the following year to be turned usually into hay or silage. It is in the upland areas where long-term leys are very much more the practice.
	I referred a few moments ago to Newcastle. I feel that I must draw attention to the work that has been done over a great many years at the experimental farm of Newcastle University, Cockle Park, and the celebrated Cockle Park mixture. It is a seed mixture of three or five year leys which in the early years of the last century did a huge amount to improve the grassland management of our upland areas and make it possible for farmers to farm those upland areas with some degree of prosperity. Single year leys do not happen in the upland areas. Where a farmer wants to improve the grassland--he ploughs it out or directly seeds it--he will do it with a three or five-year ley. It is nonsense to suggest that only a one-year ley should be the credential for having exempted land. I can provide the Minister with reams of scientific agricultural research to bear out the point I am seeking to make and which was made so ably by my noble friend when she spoke to Amendment No. 50. I hope passionately that the Minister understands the point and will agree to change the Bill to extend the 12 month period to five years.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Our Amendment No. 53 is grouped with these amendments. The first part of the amendment seeks to clarify the extent of land classified as cultivated. The amendment seeks to include among the cultivated land that grassland which is reseeded on a greater infrequency than the five years referred to in Amendment No. 50. The inclusion of the amendment would be of particular benefit to smallholders. The Bill seems to be orientated towards estates and larger farms. Disturbance of livestock will potentially have a greater effect on the few animals held on a smallholding than on a larger unit.
	The second part of the amendment seeks to include in cultivated land that land which is in set-aside at the point of mapping. It is hoped that the fact that set-aside usually takes place for only one year and is officially recorded as such will prevent any claim that such land is open country and hence access land. The amendment will ensure that that is the case.

The Duke of Montrose: I rise to support Amendment No. 52 tabled by my noble friend, or, failing that, Amendment No. 50.
	I should like to be able to declare an interest as I am a farmer with a certain amount of land over 600 metres, a great deal of which would be called "access land" under the provisions of the Bill. However, I am not able to declare an interest because that land is in Scotland. Nevertheless, I maintain a continuing interest in the question of how access to the countryside is managed.
	In an area like mine, improved grassland, in particular that under five years old, tends to be used for hay, silage or intensive grazing. As my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke explained, people tramping through such land will inhibit growth by introducing extra tracks and could even contribute to soil contamination. When such land is situated in the neighbourhood of mountain moorland and rough grazing, sheep are often put to the ram or held for lambing there. Although I can follow the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, I should point out that if the balance between rough ground and grass is correct, this enables fewer sheep to produce more lambs. That is one way of reducing the stocking rate on the rough ground itself.
	When considering this issue, I have found that it can be useful to make a comparison with Norway. An Act granting access was introduced there in 1957. It is still extant and presumably has been found to work reasonably satisfactorily. In defining the land to which access is not granted during the summer months, the law states:
	"The following are considered equivalent to cultivated land for the purposes of this Act:... Tilled fields, hay meadows or cultivated pasture".
	It goes on to list,
	"young plantations and similar areas where public access would unduly hinder the owner or user".
	When considering definitions of area, perhaps noble Lords will allow me to return to the Norwegian case and demonstrate how it does not prove to be a good comparison. In Norway, the total area of land used for agriculture or commercial forestry comprises 26.5 per cent of the whole country. If a certain amount is deducted for urban use, some 65 per cent of Norwegian land is not managed in any way and therefore fits much better the definition of open ground.
	However, in this country it seems that we are trying to redefine open ground from what it might in the first instance appear to be. In the United Kingdom, registered agricultural holdings plus productive forestry account for 70 per cent of the land. Again, allowing for urban use, the remainder of the country which comprises water and unmanaged ground amounts to only 12 per cent of the total.
	When speaking in another place during the proceedings on Report, the Minister for the Environment stated:
	"It is hard to imagine how people walking across uncultivated land, away from buildings, would generally interfere with others who were using the land".--[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/00; col. 888.]
	However, I am afraid that that is something which I do not find hard to imagine. Any hill shepherd could confirm that there are times when, among hill breeds of sheep--those sheep which will be most affected by the access provisions--disturbance is a known factor in reducing productivity. Low-ground breeds generally tend to be lambed indoors and are thus less likely to be affected. However, any stranger appearing within 50 yards of the hill breeds will cause the ewes to bunch together and move away. The least disturbance is caused when strangers remain on an established footpath.
	During discussions I had last July with the head of the Redesdale Hill Farm Research Centre near Otterburn, I heard that within the past year, one of its staff put in a bid to research this subject, but was refused a grant. Here, I am returning, but from a slightly different angle, to the point made earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, about how much research has been carried out into the effects of this increased access. Considering the importance that the Government seem to attach to the Bill, it seems to me that this is rather short-sighted.
	In the discussion I had with this gentleman, the four most sensitive periods were highlighted. These of course easily exceed the 28 days presently allowed for the managers of land under the Bill. For three weeks when the ewes are put to the ram and for a couple of weeks thereafter, with any prolonged disturbance the normal expectation of 5 per cent of ewes being barren could become 20 to 30 per cent. Two weeks before lambing, any chasing with an errant dog could result in another 10 per cent aborting. In the four weeks of lambing, complications, mismothering, drowning and abandoned lambs are the issues that worry the farmer and the shepherd. The final point is that with lambs grazing on aftermaths or late season grass for fattening it can be noticed that they do not thrive for a couple of days after a general disturbance.
	Farmers could suffer a substantial drop in income if numbers of people wander from defined pathways at these sensitive times. At a time when farmers are being asked to farm to ever higher standards and to compete in world markets, there will be inevitable production costs.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: I cannot leave my noble friend Lady Byford alone in coed cae or ffryd land in Amendment No. 36, admirably though she pronounced it. This is an important element in Welsh upland agriculture. It is the land in the foothills and on the slopes; it is usually walled or fenced and is extremely valuable to the farmer because it is used to hold sheep and livestock that have been on the mountain during the severe winter months.
	The land does not look very cultivated to the visitor's eye. The farmer has a constant battle to keep the lambs free from bracken, gorse and other predatory fauna. Nevertheless, it is extremely worth his while to do so because the land is used for stock during the winter months. I should have thought that the argument for this being excepted land is very strong indeed. Although it is not cultivated in the most obvious sense of the term, it is land that is hard fought for by the farmer to retain its usefulness, and that usefulness is certainly proven as part of the upland agriculture.

Lord Greaves: I do not want to interfere too much in matters relating to Wales, but it seems to me that if there is a major problem with the coed cae land, we must ask why it is being mapped as access land in the first place. If there is a widespread problem and this land should not be walked on, there will be huge confusion if it is mapped as access land, put on the access maps and then declared as excepted land where people cannot walk. If the problem is as it has been reported, the answer is that it should not be mapped as access land in the first place. It is not a question of it being excepted land; it should not be marked as access land in the first place. That seems to me to be the position.
	In my experience, the real problem in much of the Welsh uplands, particularly in mid-Wales, is that there are no rights of way from the valleys to the open country up on the ridges. That problem needs to be tackled. Creating routes onto the uplands obviously involves taking them through farmland and presumably through the higher coed cae land. That is the way in which it seems to me the problem should be tackled.
	That leads me to the wider problem that I have with these amendments; namely, that the difficulty is greatly exaggerated if the mapping operation goes as it ought to and inevitably will. The suggestion seems to be that any permanent pasture, any long leys in the uplands, will first of all be mapped as access land and will, or will not, be accepted as access land.
	As I understand it--but perhaps I have misunderstood and shall be told I am wrong--the whole purpose under the Bill of excepted land is to provide a means of preventing people walking on land which has been mapped as access land but for some reason, whether temporary or long-term, it is not desirable that people should walk on it for reasons of conservation or whatever.
	The land in the uplands that is referred to is in the gritstone Pennines--it is the upland pastures. By and large, these are enclosed, often in small fields. That is true in many other upland areas. Typically the farms might consist of between 40 and 60 acres, not hectares. The fields are used for various types of grass. Traditionally, most were permanent pasture and upland hay meadows. They will not have been re-seeded for a long time. They might be fertilised and drained from time to time and the thistles might be dug out, but that is all. They were permanent grassland. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, that has changed in recent years as they have been turned into three-year or five-year leys. Sometimes the period is longer. The old vegetation is scraped off and the land is re-seeded, and it might be 10 years before anything else is done to it, because these are not prosperous farms. These are fields on farms and are clearly within the enclosed farms (not on the moor) where grass is grown. There are still some hay meadows, but more often the grass is cut for silage.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, spoke earlier about lapwings. In the mid-Pennines there has been a catastrophic drop in lapwings of some 75 or 80 per cent. It has nothing to do with moorland; it has to do with the improved grassland farming techniques which have removed the wet corners of the field, the areas where rushes grew and where the lapwings used to build their nest. The birds have gone now, because farming has gone right to the corners of the fields as a result of problems such as subsidies for sheep being paid on headage.
	Surely all these areas, whether they are still upland hay meadows, permanent pasture or modern fields of grass grown for a combination of silage and pasture, will not be mapped as access land in the first place. They are not heath; they are not moor; they are not mountain; they are not common land. So why would they be mapped as access land? This is enclosed farmland where the crop happens to be grass. That is the situation.
	If you look around these areas, the whole landscape is green. It is a much brighter green than it used to be with these modern techniques, but it is green and the crop is grass. Surely such areas will not be mapped as access land in the first place. Therefore, the question of them being "excepted land" does not apply. The description of "excepted land" only applies after it has been mapped. That seems to me to be the position. If the Minister tells me that I am wrong, I shall join the rebellion.
	The only problem over grass areas as regards "excepted land" is where areas of moorland or heath are being taken, improved and turned into grassland. There is a problem when that happens because grass is a crop like any other. It seems to me that the definition of "excepted land" needs considering most carefully in relation to grass, but that applies only to quite a small number of areas. Therefore,unless I am completely wrong about the sort of area that will be mapped in the first place, it is a great exaggeration to suggest that there is a huge problem here. Perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm whether I am right or wrong.

The Earl of Caithness: I rather followed the line of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to begin with but then I asked myself, "If both mine and his reasoning are right, what is the point of paragraph 1 in Part I of the schedule?" Surely the Government would not have inserted the reference to the "previous twelve months" if the situation was not different from what the noble Lord just argued. It is because paragraph 1 appears in the schedule that one has then to consider the reasons why the Government included it. We must ensure that the very land we are talking about is not covered.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may begin by assuring the Committee that the Government take such issues extremely seriously. We gave a great deal of thought in the structure of the Bill to the issue of cultivated land. We also considered how we should use the mapping process and the concept of "excepted land" and took that into account in the way in which the Bill is framed. After a very thoughtful and careful debate, I can say with great relief how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He has not got it wrong; indeed, he has got the structure of the Bill exactly right and described it with a great deal more personal knowledge than that to which I can aspire. Nevertheless, I hope that both he and the Committee will permit me to set out the way in which this matter is dealt with in the Bill.
	Schedule 1 to the Bill sets out a short list of types of land use that are excepted from the right of access. It is the responsibility of the countryside bodies to map open country and registered common land. Those are the two fundamental elements in this construct. We expect that some areas of land will rightly qualify as predominantly open country--that is, mountain, moor, heath and down--even though the use of some of that land may be incompatible with the public right of access. I give way.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. We find ourselves returning to definitions. Can the noble Lord define "open land"? Is it land without a wall, land with a fence, land without a gate, or what?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that it would be desirable or welcome if I were to repeat the arguments that have already been aired about definition. If I may be allowed, the point that I am trying to make is about the nature of the mapping process. That is the essential way in which we must look at the concept of "excepted land". If we introduced the kind of amendments included in this group, it would be utterly counter-productive to Schedule 1. It would result in an unmanageable and obscure list of land uses that few would be able to remember--indeed, some in Wales that few would be able to pronounce--and fewer still could be relied on to interpret them accurately when out in the countryside.
	I turn first to Amendments Nos. 49 and 52. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 provides that land will be excepted if soil has been disturbed within the previous 12 months by ploughing or drilling or similar agricultural or forestry activities for the purposes of planting or sowing crops or trees. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, seems to think that is out of keeping with the rest of the categories of excepted land, but, of course, crops include grass grown for hay or silage. It is intended that land excepted from the right of access by virtue of paragraph 1 will be reasonably clearly identifiable. I believe that that has been the case. I do not think that anyone has challenged that.
	It may appear that the definition of cultivated land in paragraph 1 is drawn narrowly. There is good reason for that. The exception by paragraph 1 of cultivated land is not the primary mechanism by which improved or semi-improved farmland is itself excluded from statutory right. It is the mapping process, undertaken by the countryside bodies, which will identify what is and is not open country and registered common land. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made.
	There is provision for an extensive framework of consultation and appeals on maps. Farmers and landowners and the public will be involved in the drawing up of maps. There will be an opportunity to comment on the way in which land has been included or excluded from the draft maps produced by the countryside bodies. The mapping of open country will be a highly focused task. It will need to look at individual fields in many areas in order to identify and exclude land which is not semi-natural, unimproved grazing.
	As I said, landowners and others with an interest in land will be able, if necessary, to lodge appeals against provisional maps. Landowners will be able to object to the inclusion in maps of improved land such as the grasslands identified in Amendments Nos. 49 and 52 or the land regularly cultivated in Amendment No. 53--I shall return to Amendment No. 53 in a moment--which cannot be considered to be "open country".
	Many noble Lords have expressed concern about access to fields used to take cuts of silage or hay. I acknowledge that could cause damage. Such land is unlikely to conform to the description of,
	"mountain, moor, heath or down"--
	which are essentially semi-natural environments which have not been recently improved or cultivated--and farmers will have every opportunity to see that it is excluded from the maps.
	It is even less likely that set-aside land--here I come back to Amendments Nos. 53 and 38--which by definition is land which has previously been in arable production--will be mapped as open country. I can give the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the assurance he needs that that will not be a significant problem.
	However, we recognise that some farmers may seek to cultivate or improve their land after maps of open country have been drawn up and confirmed. Part I of the Bill will not interfere with landowners' freedom to use their land as they think fit within the existing constraints.
	The function of paragraph 1 is in effect to draw a line around land which, following ploughing or other disturbance of the soil for the purpose of growing crops, is fundamentally incompatible with continued public access and can be reasonably clearly identified as such.
	The fact that land has been ploughed or otherwise cultivated within the past year will mean that the exception from the right of access will be reasonably apparent to the casual walker. That is crucial to avoid unnecessary confusion and argument about whether right of access is exercisable over any particular parcel of land. That is poles apart from expecting a walker to make fine distinctions between improved and unimproved pasture.
	I have not referred to Amendment No. 36 which concerns coed cae and ffryd land in Wales. Ffryd and coed cae vary in character across Wales. We do not believe that it would be right to make a blanket exclusion for all land of that kind. That should be considered on its merits in the mapping process on the same terms as I have described for any land which may be improved or semi-improved grassland when maps of open country are drawn up. It is for the Countryside Council for Wales to assess whether coed cae or ffryd land is mountain, moor, heath or down. Farmers and landowners will be able to object if they disagree with the classification of open country.
	I turn to Amendment No. 50. I acknowledge that after conclusive maps of open country and registered open land have been published, land use may change in such a way that land does not fall within any of the exceptions in Schedule 1 but where access may pose problems for effective agricultural or silvicultural production.
	I do not think that the concerns of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, about lambing arise in the way that the Bill is drafted. Most open country will be upland from which ewes are brought down for lambing. Where lambing takes place on open country, we have already announced plans to review the restrictions on dogs--the animals most likely to cause disturbance to ewes lambing. It is also open to farmers to apply for directions to restrict access if necessary. Of course there is the general 28-day restriction. I recognise that the noble Duke does not believe that to be adequate for the purpose.

Earl Peel: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a moment. I do not wish to be pedantic, but I believe that I am right to say that much of the allotment land on the edge of the open fell which is used for lambing would be included in the access areas.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These matters can be addressed in the course of the mapping process. That is why I am--perhaps at inordinate length--pointing out the importance of the mapping process in the Bill as constructed. There are examples of problems. For example, a sunny south-facing downland slope may be planted with vines or other crops which do not need to be sown afresh every year. If land is planted with multi-annual crops, the exception for cultivated land in paragraph 1 will cease after the first year. But, again, the farmer can apply to the relevant authority for a direction restricting or excluding access where he can show that that direction will be necessary for the purposes of the management of the land. We do not think that the planting of multi-annual crops will happen frequently, if at all, on open country.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: The Minister says that the farmer can object to particular areas being mapped. Hundreds of farmers will see no reason why areas such as ffryd land, coed cae, lands used for lambing purposes, and so on, should ever be declared open country. To them it is not open in any sense.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They will have the opportunity to put that case in the course of the mapping process. The fundamental point I seek to make is that this is a highly focused task. It is very difficult indeed to produce definitions on the face of a Bill. Amendments are proposed to the definitions of excepted land. The mapping process will have to consider individual parcels of land and individual fields in different parts of the country. That process will provide the opportunity to farmers to do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, seeks.

Lord Marlesford: My concern is that the Government have the emphasis wrong. Instead of making clear the land for which the presumption is that it should not be available for access, the Government are providing for the mapping of a great deal of land and then making exceptions. That will cause unnecessary problems with the rural community. It will increase the suspicion of rural people that the Government do not understand their problems. That is the warning I give the Minister.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hear that warning. I do not deny that that assertion has a good deal of resonance in the countryside, but anybody who looks objectively at the Bill cannot sustain that charge.
	We need to achieve a reasonable level of certainty about the right of access. The maps of open country will provide that certainty. If we were to go further and allow for improved or semi-improved grasslands to be excepted under Schedule 1, as Amendments Nos. 49 and 52 would provide, or for land to remain excepted for five years after cultivation, as Amendment No. 50 would provide, or for substantial areas of land in Wales to be excepted without reference to their particular characteristics, as Amendment No. 36 would provide, we would severely limit the value of the maps and call into question the fundamental operation of the right of access in practice. That would mean that, notwithstanding the inclusion of land on maps of open country, every walker would need to consider for himself whether that parcel of land was improved or semi-improved. That would place an impossible burden on the public, greatly increasing the risks of confusion and argument about where people could go.
	That is why we need the greater certainty that the mapping process will bring. The mapping process allows such issues to be addressed before conclusive maps are published, avoiding confrontation between walkers and farmers on the ground or in the courts. That is why we oppose the thrust of the amendments.

Earl Peel: The Minister has given an encouraging account of how the system will work. I was interested in what he had to say, but I am bound to reflect on our earlier discussions when we tried to take the words "wholly" and "predominantly" out of the Bill. In view of what the Minister has said, I should have thought that the Government would have been happy to have let them go. The fact that they did not makes me very suspicious. I suspect that the Minister's interpretation of the mapping process does not represent what will happen.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for his conscientious and full response to the amendments. The views that have been expressed around the Committee tonight at nearly half-past 12 show how important the amendments are. I suspect that the Government have underestimated the importance of the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 50, if I may say so about one of my own amendments. The pattern of agriculture has changed enormously. I urge the Government to reconsider Amendment No. 50 before we come back on Report.
	It is late and I have agreed not to call a vote, but there are one or two things that I would like to say. My brain is a bit addled at this time of night, but I think that we have already moved from headage payments to area payments in the less favoured areas. That will help to relieve the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, mentioned.

Lord Hardy of Wath: Members of various political parties have argued that we need to sustain people in upland areas without them having to engage in overproduction. It is not natural for ewes to produce triplets in areas well above sea level. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that the population of those upland areas needs to be maintained and can be maintained without agricultural provision for the same sort of money that the taxpayer is already forking out.

Baroness Byford: I shall not get into a full discussion with the noble Lord on that at this stage. I merely wanted to raise the issue of headage payments.
	I have two other issues to raise. The Minister said that walkers would know the difference if they came across a one-year ley. I smiled slightly to myself and wondered how many walkers would know the difference between a grass field and a newly sown and growing cultivated crop of wheat or barley. There are problems attached to that, but they are for another day.
	The Minister said that the Countryside Agency will decide what is or is not open country. For the third time today I find myself asking, "My goodness, what are we doing?" Are we legislating or are we merely enabling the Countryside Agency to interpret the Bill as it wishes at various stages? I believe that this is a serious issue and it is the third time tonight that we have mentioned that the Countryside Agency will be required to make a decision. That concerns me because I believe that it is for the Government to lay down the rules and regulations and for the agency to go about its business within those restrictions. However, that is the path down which the Government are going.
	My noble friend Lord Marlesford and one or two other noble Lords behind me referred to the fact that, as we all know, agriculture has been through very difficult times. Mischievously, I wonder whether that is why the Government are passing the buck to the Countryside Agency so that it is the agency which must decide on some of these very important issues. I hope that that is not true.
	Other noble Lords have raised very important points with regard to the definition of access land and I am most grateful to them. I suspect that we shall return to the issue on Report. I hope that between now and then the Minister will be able to take away the matter and give it further thought.

The Earl of Caithness: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may support her request for the Minister to think again on Amendment No. 50, which changes "twelve months" to "five years". I believe that it is a particularly important amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will consider the possible consequences of advice that will be given to farmers should the Government not change their mind. The Government got the issue of hedgerows fearfully wrong a year ago. The advice to farmers then was, "Don't trust the Government; cut your hedgerows". Of course, that was proved to be right, unfortunate though it was in so many cases.
	I ask the Committee to think of the consequences of the advice that will be given to farmers in getting their land excepted because they dare not risk the Countryside Agency getting the mapping process wrong. The very land that my noble friend Lord Jopling mentioned will be put under cultivation. The five-year leys will be ploughed up more quickly than they should have been. The whole farming structure will be changed because farmers do not trust the Government. This is the one opportunity that the noble Lord could take to give some reassurance, particularly with regard to those delicate uplands.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am duty bound to say that it is not for me to give advice to farmers about how they protect their own interests. However, the mapping process provides a substantial opportunity for consultation and objection by farmers. It would not seem to be wise for farmers to do things that they would not otherwise have done in advance of the mapping process. I discussed in some detail the issue of multi-annual crops. I do not believe that I can go further than that.

Baroness Byford: I do not believe that I can quite let that pass. There has been no suggestion that farmers will alter their practices. The truth is that from time to time they improve certain areas of their grassland and must re-sow. I suspect that we shall come to talk about the grass moors later, together with heather burning and other land management issues. Under these proposals such normal practices will be much more difficult. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I hope that I did and, if I did, I apologise. However, I believed that he was suggesting that farmers might do things that they might not otherwise have done in order to avoid having their land classified as access land.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 48, line 5, at end insert--
	(" . Land used for the keeping of horses and which contains a stable, barn or shelter.").

Lord Glentoran: Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 have appeared in the wrong place in the grouping and should have been placed in the rather large group of amendments which I moved some time ago. However, at this time of night with these two amendments the Government have an opportunity to accept something which is common sense.
	Land used for keeping horses and which contains stables or barns really is on the same scale and the same level as the keeper's cottage, in my opinion. Land use for animal pens or enclosures is similar. The horse is probably the most sensitive of all domestic animals. When frightened, it may do significant damage both to itself and to buildings. It seems reasonable that land which is used exclusively for keeping horses should be excepted.
	I must declare an interest in that my daughter-in-law is, and has been for many years, a member of the British three-day event team. She has a stable of 15 or 20 horses in a very small acreage. However, it is part and parcel of wide open land. Regular visitors in considerable numbers with dogs and so on could be seriously disruptive to highly trained and valuable horses. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Glentoran and I shall speak at the same time to my Amendment No. 62.
	I disagree with my noble friend in relation to the fact that these amendments are taken separately. It is useful that they are dealt with in that way because they all treat with things which farmers can do by way of diversification. That is the point of the amendment which I have tabled.
	Amendment No. 39 refers to horses. My amendment is concerned with a wider range of recreational activities which might turn out to be part of a viable business for those who aim to gain a living from the countryside. It is drawn fairly widely because we do not know what will turn out to be a viable enterprise in the future in rural and agricultural areas. Of course, diversification is the "in" word at the moment and probably the only way that many farmers will survive will be by deriving income from activities which are not connected directly with the production of food.
	The issue of people paying for access to land is touched on in Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 but these amendments deal only with land for which access is currently being charged. My amendment seeks to allow the necessary scope for people wishing to diversify to restrict public access to enable them to carry out successfully that diversification. The activities to which I am referring may be motorcycle scrambling or even the creation of a wildfowl centre.
	On the subject of wildfowl centres, I telephoned the managing director of the Wildfowl and Wetland Trust. That alerted me to the major ramifications which arise from a Bill like this. I asked him whether he had any worries about the management of his wildfowl reserves. He said that he had no worries because the existing sites in the trust's ownership were all SSSIs or were special protection areas and that he would expect to be able to impose all the necessary access restrictions under that element of the legislation.
	He does expect that problems may arise in relation to breeding birds associated with river and lake margins, breeding tern colonies, winter wildfowl site roosts and feeding areas and even linear routes along watercourses.
	Somebody wishing to diversify would not have the SSSI protection. If a farmer decides to make a pond or to develop a marshy area into a wildlife or bird sanctuary, the public would still have access to that. But if he then decided that it could be turned into a visitor attraction, it would not have the protection of a SSSI. It is then impossible to justify the expenditure necessary to turn it into a viable proposition. In some ways it means that all the land designated as access land becomes as potentially sterile commercially for any new venture as all the land designated as SSSI. Many people involved in land management have found that to be the case.

Lord Mancroft: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Glentoran in respect of horses, which are not always the most placid of animals. Horses can injure people and people can injure horses. That is an increasing problem in the countryside. Within the past three or four years I have had a horse out at grass in summer, driven on to a wire fence, which had to be put down. I do not know what happened, but it is clear that there were people and probably dogs about. I suppose the dogs chased the horse round the field. That is not uncommon. I have heard of other people to whom that has happened in the past two or three years. People can be injured. There is a danger to animals and a danger to people.
	Members of the Committee will also be aware that in the past few years there have been an increasing number of unpleasant crimes involving horses. People have got into fields with horses and open areas at night and committed unpleasant violent attacks on them. That is an increasing problem in the countryside. In the summertime, many working horses are out of work and resting. They are put out into areas which either border open areas, moorland or heathland, or into those marginal parts of the countryside where there will be access areas or which are close to access areas. That sort of problem is already occurring and will no doubt increase. Where access areas border farmland, there are already problems with gates being left open. We now have to padlock gates. We have never had to do that before. That is not because people mean to do harm but because they do not know that they do harm. They leave gates open and let animals out on to the road, and so forth.
	The problem with horses is particularly difficult, much more so than with sheep and cattle. I hope that the Government will take the problem into account. A shelter gives definite guidance that that is the sort of land that needs to be exempted from the mapping process.
	We must bear in mind the state of the countryside at present, as we discussed earlier. We must also bear in mind the encouragement that landowners and farmers are being given to diversify. One of the areas into which they are diversifying is horse sports, which includes riding and having riding stables. Many farmers are doing that. It is massively on the increase. Large numbers of horses are being kept for that purpose. People are visiting wilder parts of the country in Wales, Dartmoor and the national parks for that reason. There is an increased horse population and an increasing number of people about. When people are not paying attention people and horses do not always mix as well as they should. It would be helpful if the Government could think carefully about that and nip the problem in the bud so that we do not have to return and do something in a year or two when the problem has developed.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was optimistic in looking for acceptances. I believe that the current provisions in the Bill already meet his points. In a sense we have, therefore, accepted them in advance.
	Amendment No. 39 excepts land used for keeping horses which contains a stable, barn or shelter. He and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, have argued for that. However, as a rule, land which is intensively grazed by horses deteriorates unless it has been carefully managed. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that such land would be classified as open country in the first instance. In addition, land which is covered by buildings, which would include stables, barns and most forms of shelter, is already a category of excepted land. In some cases the surrounding land where the horse is kept may also be classified as the curtilage of buildings if there are proper stables, and would therefore also be excepted. In most cases in places where the land is used for horses, horse breeding and so forth, the likelihood is that the land would have been excepted under the current provisions of the Bill.
	That is even more the case under Amendment No. 40 which would except land used for animal pens or enclosures. It is true that originally the Bill did not include any provision in that respect. However, as a result of a debate in the other place, the Government tabled an amendment which added to the list of excepted categories,
	"land covered by pens in use for the temporary reception or detention of livestock".
	The noble Lord's amendment would slightly alter that and would include such pens and enclosures not in use. I cannot go that far, but where they are in use, they will be excluded.
	In relation to Amendment No. 62, I understand the desire for or at least the option for diversification. However, it is unlikely that many such areas would need special exception, certainly not blanket exceptions. Land such as bathing beaches, campsites and wildlife centres can be taken in turn. Bathing beaches are highly unlikely to be covered by the statutory right to access as they do not fall within open country and are not registered common land. Likewise, we would not expect large campsites normally to be mapped as open country. In those situations where campsites do fall on land mapped as open country, they are likely to fall within another category of excepted land such as buildings and their curtilages; for example, tents are excepted under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. If they do not fall within any of those excepted categories, there is still the option of applying to the relevant authority for access to be temporarily restricted or completely excluded.
	In so far as wildlife centres would comprise buildings, they would be excepted and the surrounding area would be excepted. If the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, intends to include in the exception large extensive areas of land, then we do not consider that such areas should necessarily be excepted. Access may of course be excluded on the grounds of nature conservation. Again, that would be a viable approach to the Countryside Agency to provide exception on those grounds, which many wildlife centres would provide.
	The noble Lord referred to activities for which a fee is charged. I understand that in the diversification process. But this issue is dealt with more generally in a later group of amendments. Certainly in relation to wildlife centres that exist at present, which tend to be run largely by wildlife organisations, those bodies have not suggested that there is a significant difficulty. But I can see that if one is moving from farming into that area, a slightly different situation may arise. We deal with the principle of that at a later stage. Therefore I cannot accept the amendments, though the majority of those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, are already covered.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that full explanation. I am encouraged. I felt that his response was positive. Possibly I did not understand the Bill. But I feel that on this occasion my horses are probably fairly safe. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 40 to 56 not moved.]

Lord Geddes: I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 56A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 58 on grounds of pre-emption.

[Amendment No. 56A, in substitution for Amendment No. 57, not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 57 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	[Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 not moved.]

Lord Hardy of Wath: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Page 48, line 24, at end insert--
	(" . Land within an established nature reserve where partial access would be likely to damage or destroy such fauna or flora which may be protected by statute.").

Lord Hardy of Wath: I shall be brief. I have no wish to press the amendment to a vote but it invites the Government to look at the position of nature reserves. My noble friend will be aware that the Bill has been described as being important for wildlife; the most important piece of legislation for 20 years. It is significant but it is not as relevant as I should like. We must clarify the position of nature reserves.
	The national bodies are often happy about the Bill but people working in or connected with nature reserves still retain anxieties. I am pleased that my amendment was not grouped with others relating to restrictions, because people like me want others to go into nature reserves. We want people to have the opportunity to observe and learn but we do not want them to wonder all over a nature reserve.
	For example, the relevant county trust could lay out a suitable trail or walk so that people visiting a reserve could see why it exists. There may be a hide where people can quietly observe nature. One does not want to see a family picnicking in front of a hide on a nature reserve, leaving behind half a dozen plastic bottles, three drink containers and 14 sandwich wrappers, as people often do. However, we need to ensure that people running nature reserves can do so properly.
	There is another important aspect. The Government are devoting resources and attention to biodiversity. The important areas of nature conservation can be considered and species can be preserved and safeguarded and perhaps reintroduced. If we are to have proper provision for biodiversity, there must be a capacity to protect nature in order that it can survive and prosper. Therefore, there must be a capacity to control or limit the activities of the human race. After all, when the first Bill to provide such access was presented in Parliament the motor car had not been invented. When the legislation was resurrected in the 1930s the number of motor cars, the amount of leisure and size of our population were much smaller. Even during the 50 years which have elapsed since the 1949 Act the capacity of people to create havoc has greatly increased.
	In order to ensure that the wealth of our natural diversity is protected, and in order to provide adequate opportunities for people to learn and enjoy, we must preserve a capacity within the nature reserves of our island to serve that purpose.
	I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment but I invite my noble friend to relieve the anxieties of those who are concerned at the sharp end of nature conservation, to provide the degree of protection for which I have called and to contribute to the Bill being regarded as an important wildlife measure. If that description is to be earned, we need to see adjustment. I beg to move.

The Duke of Montrose: The noble Lord's comments touch on the concerns expressed in my amendment. What does he see as the definition of an established nature reserve? Is it purely an SSSI?

Lord Hardy of Wath: No, it is not an SSSI. I can think of several sites in my region which are not SSSIs. One not far from my home serves that purpose but it is not, though it needs to be, protected. One can think of many definitions, but we should recognise the role of voluntary bodies in providing opportunities for the community as a whole. We should not take steps that weaken the capacity of a voluntary body, be it national, regional or county, to serve that purpose. If it means that the Government must recognise the need to encourage people to make a contribution to enjoy that provision, so be it. I do not wish to go into great detail, but it would be wise for my noble friend and his colleagues in government to look again at the need to retain the capacity to serve biodiversity and to educate. That means that we need to guarantee the capacity to protect.

Baroness Hamwee: We support the amendment. Like the noble Lord, I am not sure whether this is the right way to go about it. The noble Lord is quite right to say that this amendment goes entirely with the grain of the Bill. Our concern goes perhaps a little further. The noble Lord's amendment makes reference to established nature reserves. We have been pondering how to encourage new nature reserves, given the structure that the Committee is debating. I am glad that the noble Lord raises the point. I hope that the Committee can find a way to ensure that these very important resources, which go entirely with the grain of the Bill to support access and wildlife protection, are not damaged or prejudiced.

Baroness Byford: I rise to support in principle the aim of the noble Lord. The amendment highlights the difficulty of the Bill. We wish to allow people greater access--we have debated many exceptions tonight--while we conserve and, to a degree, extend wildlife areas and flora and fauna. The Government face a dilemma. Without going into the details tonight, I suspect that later in the Bill we shall consider the practical ways in which this can be dealt with. At this stage we understand whence the noble Lord is coming and add our support.

Lord Whitty: Like other Members of the Committee who have spoken, I do not disagree with very much of what my noble friend said in support of the amendment. I am slightly puzzled by the precise wording of the amendment. There is a problem about referring to established sites and excluding others. I was also unclear about my noble friend's reference to partial access. I do not believe that this is the appropriate way to deal with the issue. The list to which this amendment would be added talks about activities which have an automatic blanket exclusion from the right to access. Many existing nature reserves positively encourage public access. With relatively few exceptions, access and wildlife can co-exist without significant problems.
	Therefore, there should be no automatic presumption that the provision of access is incompatible with any wildlife centre. That means that we must deal with it on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly the requirement that is laid down in relation to nature conservation as a ground for making an exception or restriction. That is backed by Part III of the Bill, which reflects the commitment to the protection of wildlife and nature conservation. We believe that that is the way to approach it rather than a blanket exception which excludes some forms of access that may be welcomed by those who run wildlife centres.
	We agree with the objectives of my noble friend. However, we believe that the Bill already makes provision for them. Part I is compatible with Part III and gives greater protection to wildlife and minimises the impact of access on the activities of wildlife centres. My noble friend indicates that he will not press the matter tonight. We take account of these matters. We hope that any further reassurances can be provided at a later stage of the Bill.

Lord Hardy of Wath: The reason I used the phrase "partial access" is that someone suggested that there are so many days which can be used to exclude the public in other areas. That would not be relevant in a situation of this kind. I should like my noble friend to look at that. It is important that we get the right balance. Otherwise, the intentions of the Government will not bring the credit deserved. For that reason I trust he will look at it. I am sure it will be a matter we return to, perhaps more than once, but not any more tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 62 to 65 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Rights of public in relation to access land]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 66:
	Page 2, line 22, at beginning insert--
	("( ) Nothing in this Act shall affect existing de facto access.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I rise at this unsuitably late hour to address a matter of great principle to the Bill. Our amendment seeks to insert in the Bill:
	"Nothing in this Act shall affect existing de facto access".
	The fact is that, although the spirit of the Bill, the statements before the Bill from the DTI in its consultation papers and statements by the Minister before the Bill emphasised that the Bill is intended to improve access, especially for riders and cyclists, all the discussion in the other place about the Bill and all Schedule 2 emphasises is the fact that there will be a prohibition on, for example, taking an animal with one into open access areas. This would include a horse. There will be a prohibition on bathing; a prohibition on fishing; a prohibition on the use of canoes.
	The issue is that in some areas--I address in particular riding--there has been a de facto access for years, established by tradition and custom and practice. On areas like Bodmin Moor it would be devastating if the Bill were to remove that access. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is not in his place, mentioned that farmers could diversify into riding and riding stables. So far as I can discover, many of those areas are not covered by the Bill. I am being brief because of the hour, but I would ask the Minister to make a definite statement as to whether or not the Bill reduces in any way the de facto access that people have enjoyed. If it does, he can be certain that we will return to the matter strongly at Report stage. To open up access to one group of people and remove the access rights of another group of people would be quite wrong.

Baroness Byford: I rise to support the amendment. Like other noble Lords, I have been written to by several horse organisations about their concerns that they will be the losers if the Bill goes through in its present form. I shall not go into further details tonight. I suspect other noble Lords will. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

Baroness Mallalieu: I first declare an interest. This is the first time I have spoken in relation to the Bill. I apologise to the Committee that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. My interest is as president of the Countryside Alliance and also in connection with this amendment, which I support, as someone who lives on Exmoor and enjoys riding and having open access to that moor. I am quite sure it was never the intention of the Government, certainly in anything we have heard so far, to restrict or control access which currently exists. Yet a great many people who ride, expressing their concerns through the British Horse Society, worry that the present drafting of the Bill, unless it is made absolutely clear, may lead to a situation where, having ridden for years over open moorland, they are suddenly stopped by a ranger who says,
	"You are on access land. Horses are not allowed. You are not allowed here any more".
	As I understand the present position, in many of the areas of open moorland, such as Exmoor, Bodmin and parts of Dartmoor, and on much common land too, people can ride virtually wherever they wish. The position is not enshrined in any enactment, although I understand that as far as concerns registered commons Section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 governs that access. But in most places it is not permissive. It is not covered by any enactment. The fact is that from time immemorial people have ridden. If you ask on Exmoor, "Where can I go?", you are told, "You can ride anywhere except where you can't", which is a very sensible way of putting it. However, the reality is that under the Bill as currently framed, and in particular under Schedule 2(1)(c), there is prohibition, which will be included in the maps, from taking with you on this land any animal other than a dog. That would prohibit people like me, like my neighbours and like many visitors to these areas who go down to ride and are very often accompanied by a dog as well.
	What we ask is that the Bill should make it absolutely clear that nothing in it is intended to take away the de facto rights which are currently enjoyed and which currently cause no problems whatever. I hope the Minister will feel that this would be a sensible and beneficial way of dealing with some real worries about the Bill which need not arise.

Lord Whitty: The Government's intention in introducing the Bill has not been to restrict anyone's existing rights. Those existing rights, in so far as they are statutory rights, are clearly protected by the Bill when they go further than the rights of access either in geographical location or in terms of what one is allowed to do. What the amendment seeks to do is rather difficult to achieve by law. It seeks basically to protect rights which exist only voluntarily and have no legal basis. It is certainly not the Bill's intention to do that.
	My noble friend Lady Mallalieu used the term "prohibition". It is not a prohibition. The right to access does not extend to the bringing of horses onto land. It covers a new right to access on foot. That is not a prohibition. If a landowner has hitherto tolerated access by horses and if there has been by custom and practice access by horses from, as my noble friend Lady Mallalieu put it, time immemorial, there is not a requirement on that landowner then to prohibit horses. Nevertheless, it is slightly difficult to provide by statute that he should continue in all circumstances to operate in the same way as he has hitherto done. It would be imposing what was a voluntary and consensual arrangement between the landowner and other users. I am not sure that one can do that by statute. On the other hand, I do not think that many of those landowners would, by virtue of the Bill being passed, alter what is their long-term practice of allowing access by horses or access to land which is not mapped as access land.
	The problem can be exaggerated and can be referred to in a way which is not the intention or effect of the Bill; that is, to prohibit such activities on access land. If the landlord is happy for the arrangements to continue and a consensual understanding is in place, those arrangements can continue. However, I am not sure that statute law can be used to go further than that.
	However, I recognise that this matter has caused anxiety and I have no doubt that we shall return to it on Report.

Baroness Hamwee: I understand entirely the point made by the Minister as regards translating a practice into statute. However, could it be approached by making a requirement that such a de facto situation should be taken into account during the mapping process; namely, that the principle should be applied to the mapping procedure rather than to the restrictions? Perhaps the Minister would like to consider that suggestion and return to it at the next stage.

Lord Whitty: I believe that the point is worth exploring, but I am not sure that the mapping process is the right way to approach it. It may well be that the local arrangements made through local access forums--I have lapsed into my "classical" mode--are more appropriate. Those forums may be better placed to address the issue.
	At this stage, my advice is that we could not legally provide for the freezing of such rights because they are not rights, but rather voluntary tolerations on the part of the landowner--however long they may have been in place.
	I shall be happy to return to the matter if noble Lords can think of another approach. However, I am clear that we cannot legislate in a blanket fashion. Such matters are best dealt with at the local level.

Baroness Mallalieu: Before my noble friend sits down, while I appreciate what he has said, can he state for the future record that it was not the Government's intention, when introducing the Bill in its present form, that existing arrangements should be affected?

Lord Whitty: I thought that I had said that already. However, if I have not stated that it was not the Government's intention that the Bill should cause the end of existing arrangements, I hope that I have now made it clear. If the grammar of my statement needs to be tidied a little, I shall ensure it is done. I hope that the requirements of my noble friend have now been met.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: While obviously not in anything like the same league in legal matters, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I are grateful for the support given by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
	I wonder whether the Minister has yet received final authority for his advice on this issue. From my admittedly rather more naive point of view, I still find it difficult to understand why such a provision could not be put on the face of the Bill. I shall research the matter further.
	In the meantime, we should bear in mind the reference made to the European Court of Human Rights and its judgments on tradition and practice and whether--this was referred to at length earlier this evening--ignoring people's rights to practise in their customary manner constitutes an infringement of their human rights. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at fourteen minutes past one o'clock.